Tamanui and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1344

Tamanui and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1344 (30 July 2025)
Applicant:John Toss Ahuroa Tamanui
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/3467

Tribunal:Senior Member A Suthers
Place:Perth
Date of decision: 30 July 2025
Date of written reasons: 13 August 2025

Decision:The reviewable decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 6 May 2025, not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is affirmed.

Statement made on 13 August 2025 at 1:27pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – 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 – family violence perpetrated by the Applicant -strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences and extent of impediments if removed – Applicant is a 41 year old citizen of New Zealand –decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305
BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
Calvey v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 104
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
CRRN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 192
Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456
FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990
FHHM v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCAFC 19
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121
Kelly v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 396
Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 412 ALR 502
Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6
Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1
Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ (2018) 266 FCR 591
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17
Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003
Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 162 ALD 13
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501C (21 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons
The decision in this matter was made on 30 July 2025 and provided to the parties with a note that written reasons would be provided within a reasonable time. These are those written reasons.
THE APPLICATION AND VISA CANCELLATION HISTORY

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister (‘the Minister’) dated 6 May 2025, not to revoke the cancellation of his Special Category (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa (‘Visa’) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Unless otherwise stated, all references to legislative provisions in this statement of reasons are to provisions of the Act.
On 22 August 2024, the Visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) because the Applicant had a ‘substantial criminal record’ on the basis of him having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more[1] (‘the Cancellation Decision’).
[1] The Act, ss 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c).
On 9 September 2024, the Applicant made representations to have the Cancellation Decision revoked under s 501CA.[2]
[2] Exhibit HB1, p 73-104.
On 6 May 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided that the power under s 501CA(4) to revoke the Cancellation Decision under s 501(3A) was not enlivened (‘the Non-Revocation Decision’).[3] Notice of that decision was received by the Applicant on 7 May 2025.[4]
[3] Exhibit HB1, p 35.
[4] Exhibit HB1, p 27.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision made under s 501CA(4) to refuse to revoke a decision made to cancel a visa under s 501(3A), where the application for review is lodged within nine days after the decision is notified.[5] In this case, the application for review was lodged on 12 May 2025, which is within nine days after the decision was notified. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
[5] The Act, s 500(6B).
I heard the matter on 17 and 18 July 2025 in the Tribunal’s Perth Registry. The Applicant appeared in-person. The Minister was represented by Ms Rezae, solicitor.
The Applicant properly, and correctly, conceded that cancellation of his Visa was mandatory under s 501(6) because he failed the character test set out in that provision.[6] I am satisfied of that fact.
[6] Exhibit HB1, p 117.
The remaining issue to be determined was whether I could be satisfied that there was ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[7]
[7] The Act, s 501CA(4).
For the following reasons, I have decided to affirm the decision under review.
THE EVIDENCE AND MY PRIMARY FINDINGS
The Applicant gave evidence and answered questions by the Minister. The following lay witnesses were called by the Applicant, and appeared in person:
(a)Ms Glynis Henry, the Applicant’s de-facto partner;
(b)Mr Allan Tawiri Tamanui, the Applicant’s father; and
(c)Ms Alison Tamanui, the Applicant’s stepmother.
In deciding the application, I have also considered:
(a)a Hearing Bundle, comprised of pages 1-425 filed with the Tribunal on 15 July 2025 (Exhibit HB1), which includes the parties’ written submissions and the Minister’s Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘SOFIC’); and
(b)the parties’ oral closing submissions.
I will refer to the evidence and submissions, to the extent necessary to expose my reasoning, below.
Applicant’s personal circumstances, offending history, and the evidence regarding a risk of recidivism
The following is taken largely from the hearing bundle by the parties, together with the evidence relied upon by the Applicant. Whilst the Applicant and some of his lay witnesses gave oral evidence and were questioned by the Minister, none were seriously challenged as to their evidence. Unless otherwise stated, I have accepted their evidence on the basis that I have found no reason to doubt its authenticity.
The Applicant is a 41-year-old citizen of New Zealand who first came to Australia at the age of 20 in February 2004. He has subsequently travelled back and forth to New Zealand. In the approximately 13.25 years between his first arrival and his last arrival on 8 May 2017, the Applicant spent approximately 4.75 years in Australia. He was granted the Visa on his last arrival into Australia. He spent time living in Sydney and Brisbane, but last resided in Perth before his incarceration.
The Applicant completed school to the equivalent of year 11. He worked in New Zealand in teaching outdoor pursuits, as a plasterer, and in farming. Between his first arrival in Australia and his incarceration on 11 January 2024, the Applicant was generally employed in security and as a forklift and delivery driver until 2018. The Applicant then developed an arthritic condition that he says has seen him suffer varying degrees of disability and has sometimes seen him immobile. This has prevented him from maintaining employment. However, he has volunteered for charity.
The Applicant said that the loss of his employment caused him severe mental distress due to not being able to provide a secure future for his family, which ultimately led him to make life changing decisions with grave consequences.
The Applicant is in a relationship with Ms Glenis Henry. He met Ms Henry and formed a relationship approximately 13 years ago, but it has been ‘on and off’. He cannot recall how many times they have had separations, but it is ‘maybe more than 7 times’. The separations have been for ‘weeks, months, days, never longer than a year’. Ms Henry has six children from prior relationships, and the couple have one child together – Mstr K, who is 12 years old.
The Applicant has family in Australia, all of whom have a right to live here indefinitely. They are:
the adult children of Ms Henry, who all reside in Brisbane: Elizabeth Moeke, Nathan Henry, Tanm Henry and Lucas Henry;
(b)two of his adult biological children, who reside in Sydney: Tangaroa Te Ra Tamanui and Maui Pikiora Tane Tapu O Hikurangi Tamanui;
(c)his partner, Ms Henry;
(d)Mstr K;
(e)Ms Henry’s other minor children Miss R1 and Miss R2;
(f)his mother, Alice Banbury, and stepfather Peter Banbury;
(g)his biological father, Allan Tamanui, and stepmother Alison Tamanui and their daughter, Miss L;
(h)his siblings, Joalla Banbury, Jury Mangaone Banbury, Jarrod Banbury, and Jamal Banbury.
The Applicant also identified that he has 12 uncles or aunts, 30 nieces or nephews, and 18 cousins in Australia, there is nothing to suggest that they have not all reached adulthood.
Of those adults, the following have not provided any evidence as to an ongoing relationship with the Applicant
Ms Henry’s children , Nathan, Tanm and Lucas;
(b)his children, Tangaroa and Maui;
(c)his stepfather, Peter;
(d)his siblings;
(e)any of his uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, or cousins.
The Applicant has one adult child living in New Zealand.
Criminal offending and other relevant conduct
The Applicant has a criminal history in New Zealand and in Australia. The full list of his criminal offending is attached as Annexure A. In summary, he has six traffic offences and 13 criminal offences in New Zealand. Two of those criminal convictions relate to committing domestic or family violence against a former partner. He has a total of three criminal offences in Australia for which a conviction was recorded, including the offence which has led to his current term of imprisonment and the mandatory cancellation of his Visa.
The Applicant acknowledged that his past offending has been contributed to by the excessive use of alcohol. He said that his offending in New Zealand was when he was ‘young and naïve’.
On 22 February 2024, the Applicant was convicted in the Perth District Court of ‘aggravated burglary and commit offence in dwelling’, and he was sentenced to four years imprisonment from 11 January 2024. He remains incarcerated for that offence and his earliest possible release date is 9 January 2026.[8] I will describe that conduct as his ‘most serious offending’.
[8] Exhibit HB1, p 362.
The sentencing Judge referred to the circumstances of that offending:
Some time by about early December 2021, you had met the victim in this matter, You met him at a social event at your home through his then close friend, [who] owed you a debt for drugs she’d purchased. I wish to make it clear that providing with drugs is not the conduct for which I’m sentencing you. In the spirit of his friendship had with [his close friend] he was prepared to pay her debt to you.
…
By 16 December, relations between [the victim and his friend] and had soured and [the victim] indicated to you he was not prepared to pay her debt. You did not accept [his] change in position and your message to him that day is clear. “I’m not the one for long texts or to play tennis all day, where we text back and forth bro so listen up. I understand what you have said now, you need to understand me. The second you took her debt and made it yours and gave me your word that I’ll have my money two weeks from the day I left yours is still in full effect bro. Whatever happened between you two in the space of two weeks means what to me bro. So me being a man of my word, I’ll be over in two weeks this Monday coming and you, a man of your word, will have my” and the last part of that message is not clear but it obviously refers to money.
Two weeks later, the Applicant attended the victim’s home with another, unknown, person. The judge’s remarks continue:
You sat on a chair in his dining area and sat down near him. At some point in time – and I don’t know when that was exactly – [he] was able to push the button on the garage door remote control, which he had near to hand. You spoke abusively to [him].
You said that the money was owing and you knew that [he] had an inheritance that was available to pay the debt.
You spoke of [his] gold bracelet and in fear, he gave that to you. [He] refused to pay any other money but he did ask how much the debt was. You said, “Why are you asking that?” and punched him to the head. The left side of [his] head hit the wall. The punch was just below the eye on his cheek.
You again punched to the face. You then said, “Do you think I’m joking?” and “Do you think I’m mucking around?”.
…
[He] said he had no money in the house. You turned away and when you returned to face [him] you had a knife in your hand. I find that you have held that knife hard up to [his] chin and you threatened him with it but no significant injury to his chin was caused. You also swiped at him with the knife towards his armpit and again, no significant injury was caused.
However, [he] was so frightened about this that he decided to make a run for his bedroom, where he had access to a courtyard and a means of escape down a neighbour’s driveway. You ran after him with the knife in your hand. got as far as the lounge room before he tripped over his coffee table and came to an abrupt stop. As he came to that abrupt stop, the knife did stab into the back of his neck and that caused a three-centimetre-long full thickness laceration.
As the jury acquitted you of a count of doing an act with intent to harm and causing bodily harm and the alternative of unlawful wounding, I do not find that the stabbing of neck was either intended to cause him harm or was deliberate so that you are criminally responsible for that wound. So again, I make it very clear, I’m not sentencing you on the basis that you were criminally responsible for that wound.
Nevertheless, that is an event that occurred while you were in the house and while you had a knife. [He] was brought back to the dining area by the man who was with you and then when that man leaned to pick up the chair that [the victim] had been sitting on – and I pause here to note that you were also acquitted of the aggravating factor that you were in company with that man – so the jury must not have been satisfied that you had a common intention with him and I’m not sentencing you on the basis of that aggravating factor.
But in any event, [the victim] made a run for it. This time, he went out the reopened garage door. He was chased and almost caught be escaped and ran to the police station about 300 metres down the road and banged on the door until the police let him in. Now, in his evidence estimated that you had been there for at least half an hour. I can’t find the exact amount of time but the facts that I have described do involve a protracted and persistent event.
…
Now, the aggravating factors in all of that was that it was at night, the purpose was to recover money that you were not legally or even morally entitled to recover from the victim, the victim was a vulnerable person – he was on his own – and he was confronted by you and there were two other people there with you. The actual violence occurred, not just threatening behaviour but there was additional threatening behaviour and there was an injury to [the victim].
…
And then again, there’s that persistence.
Further, the sentencing Judge observed that:
...You don’t have any prior offending in Western Australia and I understand from the pre-sentence report writer, in any other states of Australia so I treat you as if you are of prior good character.…
…On balance, I can’t form the view that you are at a great risk of further offending but it does seem to me that you will need to do some work and give some real thought to what led you to offending on this occasion.
…
In your case, because you do not have other offending of this type, the need for personal deterrence is a bit lower but what you did is not the sort of thing that the community accepts or finds reasonable.
…
What I can say to you is that if you act well while you’re in custody and you take the opportunity of doing courses and you can demonstrate that you have looked at your own behaviour and want to seeks to change it then that will maximise your chances of being granted parole at an early opportunity.
When questioned by the Minister, and despite being warned as to his right to decline to answer questions that may tend to incriminate him in respect of offences he has not been charged with, the Applicant said that the debt the Judge referred to had arisen because the Applicant had bought an ‘8 ball’ of Methamphetamine from someone he contacted on the Telegram App, and had on-sold it to the victim’s friend for $2,000. The Applicant said this was a one-off event that he had ‘tried’ to generate income as he was not otherwise providing for his family.
Rehabilitation and the risk of recidivism
No adverse incidents have been reported against the Applicant during his time in prison. He works at the prison and is reportedly helpful.
In prison, the Applicant has completed eight counselling sessions at the ‘Men's Circle Support Group’ which is a group where you can talk about your life with other people in prison. He said he learnt a lot from this program, and it allowed him to express himself rather than ‘bottling [him]self up’.
The Applicant has also attended 12 Alcoholics Anonymous session and 20 Narcotics Anonymous sessions.
The Applicant said that his time in prison has allowed him to self-reflect on the consequences of his behaviour, take responsibility for his actions, and to not blame others for his choices.
He said that he did not have enough maturity or emotional intelligence at the time of his most serious offending to speak to his support network about how he was feeling nor seek mental health counselling and assistance. He said that the courses he has done have allowed him to understand and ‘unpack [his] feelings about what happened and adopt a very different approach to day-to-day living which [he] would not have considered without getting the help that [he has] received’.
The Applicant said that he was exposed to violence as a child which in turn ‘normalised it to some degree’.
The Applicant is now remorseful for his offending. In respect of the victim of his most serious offending, he said that he ‘would like do something to take the traumatic effect away from him or just if there was anything I could do’. The Applicant did not identify that he had taken any active steps to do so, such as providing an apology.
Despite the Applicant’s arthritic condition, he now anticipates being better able to manage that condition and find employment.[9] He is undertaking courses in prison to obtain qualifications as a barber, in cookery, as a Skid Steer operator, in working at heights and in confined spaces, as a tractor driver and scissor lift operator.
[9] Exhibit HB1, p 100.
Ms Henry will not relocate to New Zealand if the Applicant is deported. Despite the Applicant telling prison officials at the start of his incarceration that he and Ms Henry could have a discussion about her flying to New Zealand every second fly-in, fly-out rotation from her mining job, Ms Henry now says she would visit him in New Zealand, ‘maybe once’.

As a result of his incarceration, and Ms Henry’s fly-in, fly-out work roster, Ms Henry made the decision to send her younger children to live with own mother in Queensland. The Applicant supported that decision. Whilst Miss R1 and Miss R2 have subsequently returned. Mstr K has not. Ms Henry has been to visit him in Queensland on one occasion but hopes Mstr K can return to living with her in Perth in September 2025, as she is looking for alternate work.
The Applicant has not spoken to Mstr K since his incarceration and does not intend to until he is released from prison, although his stance on that apparently softened when I pointed out to him that would mean another 6 months of no contact, and more if he was not paroled at the earliest opportunity. He said he does not think it is appropriate for Mstr K to see him in prison, because it is not a ‘good look’. I asked the Applicant the name of the school that Mstr K attends. From the vagueness of his answer, and Ms Henry’s subsequent contradictory evidence, I am satisfied he was incorrect. Nor could he bring to mind Ms Henry’s mother’s name, despite his son living with her for the last 16 months, and apparently on prior occasions.
When questioned about reports to police by Miss R1 and her aunt that he had sexually assaulted Miss R1 on two occasions, the Applicant denied any such conduct, and gave evidence that he saw as supportive of this position that Miss R1 has visited him in prison.
The Applicant also denied the extent of family violence that Ms Henry and others have reported him to the police as engaging in, which I will return to. When asked whether Ms Henry is a truthful person, the Applicant’s response was ‘I would love to believe that, but no’.
The Applicant accepts that he and Ms Henry have had loud arguments and have shouted at each other. He appeared to downplay the suggestion that he initiated any form of physical contact with Ms Henry during those incidents but accepted that they negatively affected the children.
The Applicant says that for the past three years, Ms Henry has been working through her trauma via a free employee assistance service provided by her employer. The Applicant says he is Ms Henry’s ‘main supporter even in times where she didn’t believe in herself’.
He says that his convictions for family violence incidents in New Zealand occurred in circumstances where he
was sitting with a few mates of mine, … and my partner at the time having a dispute about something, I can't remember exactly what it was. It got physical where I got pushed and just wasn't in front of everyone. We all got pushed. I pushed her back and then because of all the yelling back and forth, the police were [called].
Ms Henry
Like the Applicant, Ms Henry could not identify how many times they had separated. She provided statements of support regarding her relationship with the Applicant. In a statement made last year, she describes that:
[s]ince committing to a de facto relationship in 2012, John has been an amazing and caring father figure and role model to our children. He considers my children as his own. John has been emotionally supporting me and our children throughout our relationship. He has protected and cared for us as a loving and devoted partner and father.
John has played a big part in our lives. My children and I love him dearly and we miss his presence so much. His absence has had an emotional effect on us all. My children no longer have the support of 2 loving parents. Before John’s incarceration, when I was working, John would stay home with the children. He helped and guided my daughter who has type 1 diabetes. He prepared meals and ensured all our children were fed and taken care of. On top of this, he ensured our daughter maintained her sugar levels.
Our two youngest children miss going fishing, swimming, and watching the Muay Thai League with their father. Both our boys are getting to that age where they need their father around, especially at 11 and 12 years of age. They need their father to be in their lives to support them during their formative years. The pain and hurt I hear in our children is emotionally affecting me. I try to explain to our children that it’s only temporary, but I know the possible outcome.
As a result of John’s absence, I have had to take my children to live with their grandparents whilst I am at work. It breaks my heart to see our family torn apart.
[In] 2013, John and I had a son together. His name is [Mstr K].
He is currently 11 years old. [He] is struggling the most. He has never been separated from his father. When John first went to prison, I had to stay home for two weeks to help him understand that Daddy wouldn’t be coming home for a very long time. Our son is angry with his father for going away, in his eyes it’s been 100 years. I’m trying to encourage him to come to the prison as I feel it would help him understand.
We are all struggling emotionally and financially. I have only myself to rely on, paying rent, and the bills we have together, my daughter chips in when I’m at my lowest. At this moment, I’m looking at doing back-to-back shifts to help fight John's deportation, my mum has said she’ll take our two boys back to Brisbane while I fight this case and before school starts next year they will return them to me, as my dad and family live in Brisbane, that’s where my mum’s life is and she has been awesome to have at this time. This breaks my heart knowing I will not be able to see my boys in another 3 to 4 months whilst I work to support my family financially. At times like this, I’ve had to rely heavily on my mum. Because of managing our financial situation, our sons will now be left without the care of both parents.
My older children, namely Elizabeth, Nathan, Tanm and Lucas, have their own lives. They all live in Brisbane and have their own families. I cry myself to sleep every night, it’s a lonely process, the anxiety of not knowing what’s to come. I find myself forcing food into my body. There are days when I don’t want to get out of bed. John's absence has crushed my soul and left a void in my heart. If John is deported, I’ll be torn as my older children and grandkids have built their lives here, in saying that I know our baby [Mstr K] will want to live with his father as he is a daddy’s boy. I’ll be divided. I can’t begin to think of that right now, it’s unbearable.
…
John is a gentle soul, with the biggest heart.
We as a family have suffered through all of this. I ask for leniency, for my family to be whole again, we are here to support him outside of jail and being a strongminded man, I know in my heart nothing like this will ever happen again. I hear remorse in his voice every time I speak with him on the telephone.
There have been two apprehended violence orders in place for the protection of a person (whose name has been redacted) from the Applicant in Queensland in 2017 and 2018[10], and several documented reports to police of violence in the relationship between the Applicant and Ms Henry.
[10] HB1, p 315.
Against this backdrop, the Minister questioned Ms Henry about some of the reports she and others have made to police of family violence occurring between her and the Applicant.
Ms Henry said that she was the one who had broken a chair during an argument, that was observed by police when they attended the home as a result of a call from one of her sons, who was 11 at the time.
Ms Henry also resiled from allegations she made to police in 2023, as recorded in a police incident report in evidence, that:
she just broke up with her partner and she is scared he is going to kill her. He has a lot of friends and eyes everywhere.
…
during their 5 year relationship, TAMANUI has physical assaulted her multiple times causing her to require medical attention. Due to her being scared of TAMANUI, she would never tell the hospital staff how she was injured. TAMANUI has used blunt objects like meat mallets and knife sharpener to threaten and assault her. He has never used an edged weapon to penetrate her skin.
He has threatened to kill her and her children who currently reside in Queensland under the care of CPS. He has their contact numbers and sends them images of holding objects towards [redacted]. TAMANUI has also pulled out a knife and held it against her throat saying "I will kill you", this was approximately 4 months ago. TAMANUI recorded this on his phone and sent it to [her] daughter through Facebook Messenger.
He has never expressed any feelings or thoughts about hurting another animal. TAMANUI does threaten and has before assaulted other males who sit next to [her to] assert dominance over her and to make her fearful.
TAMANUI has never strangled her previously however due to her being frightened of him he takes advantage of her and forces her to have sex. She doesn’t say no due to her being scared of what he may do, the last incident of this was around 4 months ago.
TAMANUI has control over her Facebook and bank accounts through his phone. He always withdraws money when she gets paid and requests money from her. He also uses her phone to contact people through her Facebook to threaten them for talking to her. He doesn’t let her leave the house whenever she likes and continuously has people following her.
…
Police asked if she had any visible injuries or scars from these previous assaults. [She] stated only one and pulled her right arm sleeve up and exposed a small lump near her wrist. Police took photos of the injuries and uploaded it onto AXON.
Ms Henry also acknowledged making broadly consistent prior allegations to a friend, that the friend reported to police, but said they were, similarly, not true.
Despite those denials, Ms Henry said that she and the Applicant have
had heated disagreements and every couple argues but and what do you mean by heated I, I yell really loud. He just tries to make me see sense. Of course he gets annoyed with me at all my yelling. We've both shoved each other.
Ms Henry now blames herself for the disagreements, referring to her past use of methamphetamine. In her view now
he’s just trying to make me see there's more to everything than what I've learned with it. I think it’s, I’m just disrespectful and women in my family are used to being in power and they still are today… There were times, so many years, I was jealous of him, envied him. I went to a dark place every now and then while on drugs and everyone just adored him, and it made me more jealous of him.
Ultimately, Ms Henry accepted the proposition that her evidence was that she had consistently made up allegations that the Applicant was violent towards her or emotionally abusive or controlling. Notwithstanding that she had also told a friend about the allegations, who had also reported the issue to police, Ms Henry said that none of it was true, and she had made it all up.
Ms Henry was also taken to a report made by a family member (described as an aunt) to police in 2022 that was recorded in an incident report:
[The aunt] attended the Fremantle Police Station with concerns regarding her niece [Miss R1]. She advises her other Niece Glynis resides with John at [redacted].
Glynis had moved to Western Australia from Queensland in 2019 and joined by John 2 months later. Glynis has 4 children being 17 years, [Miss R1] 15years, 10 years and 9 years. All children have moved in with mum at different stages from Queensland and reside with her.
[Miss R1] joined her mother after staying with her grandmother in Queensland about 1 month ago. [The aunt] advises the relationship between John and Glynis is a volatile one. She believes there were occurrences in Queensland and some here as well as she has been to the address and taken the children to her address, who are visibly shaken after these events.
Over the weekend 12/08/22 to 14/08/2022 she has collected [Miss R1] and the 2 boys who stayed with her and then took them back home at 2000hrs 14/08/2022.
[Redacted] has stayed with her. She stated a little later after dropping the children off [redacted] stated to her, [Miss R1] told me to tell you [the Applicant] is molesting her. [Redacted] knows no more and it is unknown what [Miss R1] means by this as [redacted] has not been able to speak with her since finding out. She is concerned about what may be happening so informed police.
Police subsequently interviewed Miss R1, recording the following disclosures:
Groping / Touching on the bum. Mum went to work early in the morning [the Applicant] asked her to come into his bedroom. Ask her to lay on top of him and touched her bum touched it, squished it.
She felt uncomfortable has feelings of guilt, shame and embarrassment.
Incident 2)
Again mum had gone to work early in the morning.
[The Applicant] made her head lay down on his thing (clarified thing is Penis) - had his pants on. Held her close to his body, whispered in her ear - he can get whatever he wants out of her.
Both incidents lasted approx. 5-10 mins.
2 X younger brothers in the home when this occurred. Brothers knocked on door this made [the Applicant] stop.
Ms Henry says that these allegations were made after the Applicant made Miss R1’s sister leave the home for being ‘disrespectful’.
On learning of the allegations, Ms Henry went home to talk to the Applicant about it and ‘knew just by looking at him none of that happened’.
Ms Henry is sure Miss R1 made the claims up. The first incident, which was said to have occurred in Queensland, had also been reported to Miss R1’s uncle. In evidence rather difficult to follow the logic of, Ms Henry said that if it were true, the uncle would have done something about it, and so would Miss R1’s father, who Ms Henry thought would have also been told.
Ms Henry says that Miss R1 made the allegations because ‘it gives you all the sympathy you want’, and that Miss R1 and her sister ‘got everyone they needed here in Perth, everything they wanted, not from me…, from my mother and my auntie, you know’. Ms Henry also thinks the allegations were made, in part, to separate her from the Applicant, so the children could have her all to themselves.
Now, if Ms Henry raises the issue with Miss R1, Miss R1 ‘just crawls under a rock’ and Ms Henry can see Miss R1 ‘is ashamed’ and ‘just shuts down’. Ms Henry says Miss R1 subsequently recanted the allegations. No police action was taken against the Applicant in respect of them.
Alice Banbury
The Applicant’s mother provided a statement of support, noting, relevantly:
…the John I know is really a good person he is my best friend and I love my son he was brought up in a loving home , he knows right from wrong and knows he has to make things right. John has a beautiful lil family now who live in Perth and he has his eldest son living in Sydney doing his electrician apprenticeship they are close. John is not a threat to the community he will give his last dollar and his shirt off his back as I was an active member of the Koha Shed here in Wynnum, Brisbane If I needed John for help dropping food parcels off he was there, he even helped with a Domestic Violence distraction [sic].
John has a lot of nephews and nieces and all his cousin's adore him, he was also brought up around the elderly with respect, John is loved and will have support. His rehabilitation would be to stay in Australia because we his family are all here and willing to help him back into work become an active member of our community again.
Allan Tamanui
The Applicant’s father said in his statement that the Applicant:
…emotionally supported me through some of the toughest times I have ever had to face, and his desire to do the best for his boys led him to make extremely tough decisions when he split up with their mother. He has only ever wanted the best for them and continues to want to be a positive role model for them as they grow into exceptionally fine young men.
My son, my grandsons and I all talked together on the phone regularly before his incarceration and John always advised his boys to take the higher ground, to be the best they could be, to see the best in the world and to support each other. My pride in seeing him become this person cannot be overstated, as John has not had an easy life.
He has suffered so much with a very serious medical condition in what should have been the prime of his life and has at times been confined to a wheelchair and has struggled to maintain a job due to intense pain.
…
I have seen the good works John has undertaken to help others when they were in need, raising money to support others. I have seen his commitment to his boys, and I have heard the truth in his voice when he has recognised the mistakes he has made, when he has spoken of his remorse at his offending, and when he talked of his deep desire to make a better life for himself and show his sons what a good man can achieve.
Mr Allan Tamanui has lived in Australia for many years, having moved here from New Zealand when the Applicant was young. However, having later reestablished a relationship with the Applicant, he used to visit him regularly in New Zealand, before the Applicant moved to Australia. Mr Allan Tamanui has recently moved to Perth and visits the Applicant in prison. He hopes to be a greater source of support to the Applicant on his release from prison.
However, Mr Allan Tamanui has never met Mstr K, and thought Mstr K was living with Ms Henry.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Allan Tamanui had only met Ms Henry on one occasion, some years ago. He had difficulty recalling the detail of the Applicant’s most serious offending, despite reading the sentencing remarks. He knew there was ‘obviously a knife wound that had happened in that altercation or whatever happened’ and seemed unaware of the Applicant’s prior offending. He could not recall the nature of the debt the Applicant was collecting from the victim.
Alison Tamanui
In a statement, Mrs Tamanui gave evidence consistent with her oral evidence that:
[I]t saddened us to hear how much John struggled with his health and how his life was so difficult, to the point where he was confined to a wheelchair and was in constant pain. This resulted in him feeling he had lost his mana (Maori word for respect and standing) and I believe was a contributing factor in his offending.
…
I have witnessed firsthand how much John's relationship with his father (my husband) means to the two of them. I hear the emotion in their voices when they hang up from their long conversations and I see my husband's pride in his son at how he is coping with the challenges in his life and how he has been man enough to state his remorse at the mistakes he has made and how he needs to turn his life around.
I have heard the group chat conversations my husband has with John and his three sons and know that John has grown significantly as a man and hear how he urges his boys to be the best men they can be. It has been heartwarming to see the messages he sends through to them which are all about love, growth, and gratitude.
I know John has made mistakes, but I also know he is trying to make amends and has taken responsibility for those mistakes. He is a strong, resilient, caring, and generous man and I do not think he is any threat to the wider community. With the help of his father and myself, he will be an asset to this country he calls home.
Other witness statements
Ms Elizabeth Moeke’s statement describes her relationship with the Applicant:
Ever since John became part of our family back in 2011-2012, he has made my mother so happy, he came and turned all our worlds around, he helped me out with myself and my siblings, showing us what a father figure should be, in my experience he is my dad. Showered us with love, he was so caring and kind, my siblings and I [accepted] him straight away. Please don't deport the only man who has shown us so much over the years, even though we are in Queensland and haven't had much contact lately, it's good to know he's not far away to lend a helping hand, my younger brothers as my mum will not have that support or love, emotional or financial. I pray he gets to stay, going back to NZ will cause us all to be apart further.
…
…we will always be here to support him, no matter the distance. No one has ever been there for my mum the way John has, that's because he has such a big heart, to take on all us kids.

Mr Harvey Harrison, the President of a charity called ‘Family First People Helping People’ stated that the Applicant’s input within the group:
showed true his ability to navigate and pass on ideas becoming of a natural born leader with an ability to openly converse and nurture those less fortunate than ourselves. John has been a member of our Family First People Helping People club for the past 6 years and will continue to be a part of our Non for profit organisation well into the future. John was very approachable and was held in high regards by members of a multicultural institution and also the public he communicated with, he held very high standards when out and about in the community. John showed great passion when conversing with those less fortunate than ourselves and he had this ability to get people to openly reflect on their past indiscretions or their life on the streets of Perth. John will always be a part of Family First People Helping People moving forward and into the future, he was a member from the very start which would be 7 years now and will continue to be a part on his release hopefully from corrections.
Four other witnesses, namely Carly Martin, Khyle Loveless, Beau Soden and Dylan Richards are friends of the Applicant and provided statements broadly supportive of him, describing his potential to contribute positively to Australian society, his good nature and assistance he has provided to them, and their concern for him and his family if he is deported.
There is no medical or expert evidence before me that goes to the extent of the Applicant’s disability from his arthritis, or as to his risk of recidivism.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
It remains to be determined under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act if there is ‘another reason’ why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. The task of identifying ‘another reason’ was explained by the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court in Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[11]
There is no statutory power to revoke under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) unless the Minister is satisfied that there is a reason, other than a conclusion that the person concerned passes the character test, which means that the original decision ‘should be’ revoked. It is not enough that there is a matter that might be considered or may be said to be objectively relevant. It must be a reason that carries sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked. Only a reason of that character enlivens the statutory power to revoke. It is the absence of such a reason that will result in a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.
[11] (2018) 162 ALD 13, [64] (Colvin J).
There has been extensive judicial consideration of how the exercise of balancing and weighing the considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions is to be undertaken (albeit in the context of Ministerial Directions preceding Direction no. 110).[12] The Full Court of the Federal Court considered the operation of Direction No. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[13] While the Court was considering Direction No 90, I am satisfied that its observations apply equally to Direction no. 110. The Court found that the Tribunal must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction no. 110) against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was ‘another reason’ why the cancellation should be revoked.[14]
[12] See, for example Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 (‘Suleiman’), Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ (2018) 266 FCR 591.
[13] [2023] FCAFC 138 (‘CRNL’).
[14] CRNL, [35].
The Migration Act
Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel the visa of certain incarcerated persons, if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
Additionally, under s 501(3A), the person must be serving a ‘sentence of imprisonment’, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
It is not in dispute, and I have found, that those conditions were met here.
If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the cancellation decision.[15] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under s 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked. Making a revocation decision under s 501CA requires the decision-maker to first decide whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not, to then decide under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) if there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[16]
[15] The Act, s 501CA(3).
[16] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].
Direction no. 110
The Minister, and therefore the Tribunal on review, is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, reasonably and on a correct understanding of the law.[17] By the operation of s 499(2A), in doing so the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to
[17] FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990, [63] (Thawley J); Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456, [119] (Halley J).
s 499(1).
On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction no. 110 under s 499, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024. That is the Direction that must be applied.[18]
[18] Direction no. 110 paras 2-3.
An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under
[19] Direction no. 110 para 5.1(4).
[20] Direction no. 110 para 6.
ss 501 or 501CA.[19] In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[20] However, the Direction does not authorise or require the Tribunal to ignore other relevant evidence or factors that may lead the Tribunal to a state of satisfaction that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
Whilst the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110 are mandatory considerations they are ‘not an exhaustive universe’ of considerations’.[21] Put another way, while Ministerial directions may serve a purpose of consistency of decision-making, the Minister cannot, by such a direction, dictate what must be the outcome before the Tribunal undertaking its review on the merits of a particular decision.[22] Similarly, there is no presumption that, because a person fails the character test, it means that they must not be allowed a visa.[23]
[21] Calvey v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 104, [45].
[22] Kumarv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 412 ALR 502, [26] (‘Kumar’).
[23] Kumar, [41].
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 contains several principles that must inform my application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision. Those principles are:
1Australia 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 noncitizens 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.
2The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
3Non-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.
4The 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 measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5Australia 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.
6With 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.
7Decision-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.
8The 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.
Informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110, I must take into account the primary considerations and the other listed considerations, where they are relevant, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. I must also consider the Applicant’s other clearly articulated submissions based on established facts that may properly bear on my decision.
The primary considerations are set out in paragraph 8 of the Direction. They are:
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(c)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(d)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(e)expectations of the Australian community.
The ‘other considerations’ that I must properly consider, insofar as they are relevant to the matter, include (but are not limited to):[24]
(a)       legal consequences of the decision;
(b)       the extent of impediments if removed; and
(c)       the impact on Australian business interests.
[24] Direction no. 110 para 9.
Further guidance as to how I am to apply the considerations in
Direction no. 110 can be found in paragraph 7, which provides:
1In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
2The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
3One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
However, as regards paragraph 7(2), in FHHM v Minister for Immigration,[25] the Full Federal Court considered its precursor in Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O’Callaghan and Colvin JJ, with Derrington J in agreement, referred with approval to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman,[26] and stated at [34] that ‘…particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations...’
[25] [2022] FCAFC 19.
[26] Suleiman, [23].
It is not sufficient for the Tribunal to weigh each of the considerations in Direction no. 110 separately and then aggregate each of the individual assessments by some form of tabulation or calculation. The Tribunal must undertake a process of weighing and balancing, by which it evaluates the different relevant considerations in relation to each other in a balancing exercise in order to reach the ultimate conclusion required by s 501CA(4) of the Act.[27]
[27] CRNL, [28], [34]-[35], [37]-[38].
The discretion conferred by s 501CA(4) is to be exercised subject to the Act and to the self-evident Australian community protective purpose of the discretion. However, by virtue of the section conferring a discretion, it necessarily follows that Parliament has accepted that this purpose is not necessarily served in a given case by a refusal to grant a visa to a person who does not pass the character test.[28] Punishment of the Applicant for the conduct or offences relevant to the decision plays no part in the Tribunal’s evaluation. That is a role that is ‘exclusively judicial in nature’.[29] However, the process by which the Applicant’s visa was cancelled, and whereby that cancellation may not be revoked, is not itself punitive in nature.
CONSIDERATION
[28] Kumar, [41].
[29] Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1, [27] (Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ).
Protection of the Australian Community
The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), directs my attention to the protection of the Australian community. It requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.
I must have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[30]
[30] Direction no. 110 para 8(1).
Paragraph 8.1(2) then provides that I must also consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
I dealt with the Applicant’s most significant offending conduct above and have taken into account the undisputed nature of his other and less significant offending conduct as reflected in Annexure A. However, I will disregard the offending which was dealt with by the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 26 July 2012, commit public nuisance, which resulted in a fine of $250 and no conviction recorded.[31] It is not a conviction and was clearly considered by the Court not to be serious.
[31] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17;
Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6.
Direction no. 110 requires me to take into account a range of factors, including certain conduct which is specifically categorised in paragraph 8.1.1(1), and thereby deemed to be regarded by Australia’s Government and community as ‘very serious’ or ‘serious’.
Conduct that is deemed to be regarded as ‘very serious’ includes violent crimes. It also includes acts of family violence, regardless of whether it led to conviction for an offence. The Applicant has engaged in conduct that meets both of those descriptions, in respect of his most serious offending and in respect of the following family violence offences in New Zealand:
(a)30 April 2010 - Common Assault Domestic (Manually) (Family Violence); and
(b)17 February 2009 - Common Assault (Crimes Act) Manually (Family Violence).
By his own admission, the shouting arguments between the Applicant and Ms Henry also involve the Applicant committing acts of family violence, given the detrimental impact it had on the children through causing them to be fearful.
In respect of his most serious offending, I take into account the severity of the sentence imposed by the court noting that incarceration is a sentencing option of last resort. I have also considered the effect on the victim as described in the sentencing remarks. In respect of the family violence, that has impacted the children in the manner described by the aunt, and the Applicant accepts that it has had a detrimental effect on them. I accept, though, that the Applicant is genuinely remorseful for those consequences and that neither Ms Henry nor Ms Elizabeth Moeke describe the conduct as having detrimentally affected them.
In addition to the above, the Applicant has also been convicted of two offences in Australia, 13 offences in New Zealand; and six traffic offences in New Zealand. He has also admitted to the purchase and sale of illegal drugs.
I will not, however, take into account under this consideration the allegations of more serious family violence against Ms Henry, nor the allegations of sexual assault of Miss R1. Whilst there was a troubling air of unreality to much of Ms Henry’s evidence, that can be said to cut both ways. She may equally have been untruthful when making the allegations, as when recanting them. The only reliable evidence before me about Miss R1’s allegations to police is that they were also recanted, and did not lead to further investigation by police.
Whilst the offending is not, over recent years, properly described as frequent, the Applicant has offended on no fewer than 23 occasions in 22 years, and I have considered the cumulative effect of his repeated offending in that regard. Such offending in many instances has individual impacts, but such a pattern of offending also has broader negative impacts by placing a strain on police resources, the justice system, and, ultimately in this case, the penal system. I also consider the offending to be of increasing seriousness, given the Applicant’s prior conviction for ‘burgles (oth prop) (under $500) by ngt’ for which the Applicant received a fine of $705 and non-residential periodic detention for 3 months, which has escalated to aggravated burglary and commit offence in dwelling for which he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
The offending conduct in New Zealand would also be classified as comparable offences in Australia.
I accept that there is no evidence of the Applicant having been warned of the consequences of his conduct on his migration status, nor of him providing false or misleading information to the Department.
In written submissions to the Minister seeking revocation of the cancellation of the Visa, whilst legally represented, the Applicant acknowledged that his offending must be considered to be ‘very serious’.[32] He did not submit to the contrary at the hearing. The Minister agrees.
[32] Exhibit HB1, p 118.
I am satisfied that the Applicant’s offending must be regarded as being viewed as very serious by Australia’s government and community.
Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

I must then consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction no. 110 states, in part:
1In considering the need to protect the 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.
2In assessing the risk that may be posed 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; and
(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 noncitizen 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 (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). …
There is no statutory constraint on the way that I assess that risk other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for my assessment.[33]
[33] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] (Moshinsky J); Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] (Kenny J).
Nature of the harm
I am required to have regard to paragraph 8.1.2(1) and have done so.
In respect of the risk of further harm, I agree with the Minister that the harm caused if the Applicant were to re-engage in similar conduct of concern is significant and would likely involve physical, financial, and psychological harm to members of the Australian community. The Applicant did not contend otherwise.
In respect of paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b), the Applicant submitted that he poses a very low risk of reoffending or engaging in other serious conduct. He pointed to the following factors, that he said are strongly protective:
(a)His willingness and intention to engage in further counselling and behavioural programs;
(b)His intention to pursue further education by completing courses in custody; and
(c)His desire to return to his family home and to continue improving his relationships with his parents, siblings, children, and his partner Ms Henry.
I have also taken into account the Applicant’s evidence more broadly and the evidence of those who are supportive of the Applicant and who speak to his good character and love for his family.
However, the Minister submits to the contrary, and that several factors support this conclusion:
(a)There is no recent and detailed assessment of risk presently before the Tribunal, although a ‘treatment assessment report’ dated 22 March 2024 records that the Applicant scored a 1 on the ‘ROR-PV assessment tool’ which was described as a ‘low ROR-PV score’;
(b)The sentencing Judge’s remarks that she ‘can’t form the view that you are at a great risk of further offending but it does seem to me that you will need to do some work and give some real thought to what led you to offending on this occasion’ were made without reference to the Applicant’s prior convictions in New Zealand, where the New Zealand record indicates that he was convicted of burglary in 2002 and receiving property in 2003;
(c)The Applicant attributed his most serious offending to his ‘stress and anxiety increased at this time as I tried to cope with the loss of my employment and my debilitating condition [rheumatoid arthritis]. This fuelled my poor decision making.’ However, despite the Applicant undertaking vocational courses in prison, there is no evidence that any of those factors will change upon his release. Indeed, the Applicant’s recent criminal history may provide a further barrier to entry into employment; and
(d)The Applicant has continued to re-offend after receiving fines and community work orders, which speaks to a level of disregard for law and authority.
The Minister submitted that to the extent that the Applicant has a support network of his family and friends, such a network was available to him at the time of his offending, and it did not prevent him from offending. Whilst Mr Allan Tamanui and Ms Alison Tamanui have now moved to Perth, which is a new development, I am nonetheless in agreement with the Minister as to this issue.
Furthermore, the Applicant and Ms Henry’s relationship is clearly a volatile one, as they both accepted. The Applicant’s view that Ms Henry is untruthful is not indicative of an immediate resumption of a more settled relationship between them on release. Nor is the presence of Miss R1 in Ms Henry’s home, given the allegations she has made against the Applicant, which Ms Henry thought were aimed at ensuring the Applicant was removed from her life.
Whilst it is commendable that he has undertaken the limited courses available to him, the Applicant’s engagement in rehabilitation in prison to date also seems unlikely to be sufficient to address long term behavioural issues. There is no evidence to corroborate the Applicant’s understandable, but self-interested, view that it has.
Despite the existence of the protective factors identified by the Applicant, and the Applicant’s express remorse in his prepared material, and at the hearing, I accept the Minister’s submissions as to this issue and am satisfied that there remains an unacceptable risk of harm to the community.
In conclusion, in respect of protection of the Australian community, I assess this primary consideration as weighing very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Under paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 I must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant when deciding whether to revoke the Cancellation Decision.
The Applicant submits that when he committed family violence in New Zealand, he was young and did not consider the consequences of his actions. He says his family violence offending occurred in 2008 and 2010 followed ‘drunken arguments and some pushing and shoving with [his] then partner where [they] were both drunk, immature and volatile’. He claims that he quickly learnt from those offences. However, Queensland police records I referred to above reflect that the Applicant was the subject of family violence protection orders protecting another person in 2017 and 2018.
Further, as I have noted, the Applicant has not managed to completely refrain from engaging in family violence since then, insofar as he has engaged in shouting arguments with Ms Henry in front of the children. The fact that Ms Henry now assumes the majority of the blame for the incidents between them does not alter that fact, although I make no finding that the Applicant’s part in those incidents went beyond shouting. As he accepts, those incidents detrimentally affected the children, who were not completely shielded from them.
On that basis, whilst I find there to be no increasing seriousness of the family violence perpetrated by the Applicant, I do take into account the cumulative effect of its repetition. I note the arguments caused one of the children to call the police on one occasion and that the ‘aunt’ described to police that she ‘has removed the children after such incidents and that they were ‘visibly shaken’.[34] I consider that to be credible evidence from an independent source and it was not challenged. Nor is it negated by Ms Henry’s assumption of blame for the arguments.
[34] See [44] above.
I have no corroborative evidence as to the rehabilitative outcome of the counselling the Applicant has undertaken in prison in this regard. I infer from his responses to questioning by the Minister that he was, at the date of the hearing, of the understanding that family violence necessarily entails the application of physical force, which does not indicate a deep level of understanding or reflection on the issue that might be expected to result from counselling that addressed the issue. He does, however, now express his remorse and responsibility for his part in the conduct and the impact it has had on the children.
I accept that he has had no formal warning as to its potential effect on his migration status.
Weighed together, whilst the Applicant submits that this primary consideration ‘is not relevant to this revocation request and should be considered neutral,’ I am satisfied that it weighs moderately against revocation of the cancellation of the Visa.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of Direction no. 110 provides that:
1Decision-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.
2Where 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 resided in Australia for about 13 of the last 21 years, having first arrived in Australia at the age of 20. He says that he does not associate New Zealand as home.
On that basis and given his extensive family and other social network in Australia, he submits that his strong family and social ties to the Australian community considered with the strength, nature, and duration of these ties to Australia should weigh strongly in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Visa.
I have identified, above, the people who have been nominated by the Applicant as his family and social ties. It is an extensive list, however, only those who I named as providing statements gave evidence of the strength of their bond with the Applicant. Beyond his father, his children, Ms Henry, and her children, the Applicant did not address his relationship with other members of the group.
All those persons have at least the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
I consider the Applicant’s biological children (including those who are now adults); Ms Henry and her children; the Applicant’s father, Mrs Tamanui, and Miss L; the Applicant’s mother and Mr Banbury, and the Applicant’s siblings, to constitute his immediate family. To the extent there is evidence of the Applicant’s relationship with such of those persons who live in Australia, it generally indicates that the Applicant has strong and ongoing ties to them, and that they would be negatively impacted by his removal.
The Applicant otherwise has familial ties to 12 uncles or aunts, 30 nieces or nephews, and 18 cousins living in Australia. He also has a social connection with Carly Martin, Khyle Loveless, Beau Soden, Dylan Richards, and the membership or beneficiaries of the work undertaken by Family First People Helping People.
I have taken into account that the Applicant did not start offending soon after arriving in Australia. His first recorded conviction was not until March 2015.
The Minister also acknowledged that the Applicant has worked in security, as a forklift driver, as a delivery driver, and volunteers for Family First and supported the Koha Shed charity.
The Minister submitted that, on that basis, while it can be accepted that the Applicant has contributed positively to the community through his employment and volunteer work, his positive contributions in this respect are substantially outweighed by the harm caused by his offending, and the public costs expended in addressing it. The Minister also contended that while the Applicant’s ties to Australia weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation, it does not outweigh the other primary considerations.
Overall, I find that this primary consideration weighs moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Visa.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
The parties have identified as the children affected by the decision Miss R1, Miss R2, and Mstr K. I have also identified Mr Allan Tamanui’s adopted daughter, Miss L (who is 13), as potentially, being affected if the Applicant being deported.
If that occurs, the first three of those children will not have continued input from a present father figure. The Applicant submits that has particular significance where:
(a)peer pressure is brought to bear on children as they grow up;
(b)shared parental responsibilities is generally accepted as being in the best interest of children;
(c)the children’s mental health and well-being would be affected without the Applicant being physically a part of their lives;
(d)Miss R1 and Miss R2’s father plays a limited role in their lives; and
(e)the Applicant has been an exemplary role model for his children and will continue to play a positive parental role in his children’s lives if he is allowed to remain in Australia;
Both parties accepted, and I am satisfied, that this consideration must be given weight in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.
In respect of the first three of those minor children, the Minister accepted that their best interests weigh in favour of revocation. However, the Minister contends that any weight to be given to their interests should be tempered on the bases that:
(a)The Applicant’s relationship with the children has been marked with a lengthy absence given he has been in custody since February 2024;
(b)Those children are cared for by their mother and their maternal grandmother, who fulfil the parental role;
(c)There is no reason why the Applicant could not maintain a relationship with his children via telephone or video;
(d)In light of Miss R1 turning 18 in three months from the hearing, and in light of the serious sexual abuse allegations made against the Applicant, it may not be in Miss R1’s interest for the cancellation decision to be revoked.
Overall, while this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, the Minister contended that this consideration is outweighed by the other primary considerations which weigh very heavily in favour of non-revocation.
Firstly, although I accept that it is in Miss R1’s best interest to revoke the cancellation of the Visa, I will moderate the weight I give to this factor in respect of her as she is soon to turn 18. I will disregard the sexual abuse allegations for the reasons given earlier. I also take into account that whilst all of those children have a long relationship with the Applicant and the other evidence is that they are close and enduring relationships, they have been interspersed with periods where they have lived apart.
I also moderate the weight I might otherwise give this factor in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Visa due to the exposure those children have been subjected to by the Applicant in regard to verbal domestic violence and reject the contention that he has been an exemplary role model, given that conduct and his offending. I do accept, though, the potential, but not certainty, that the Applicant may play a positive parental role in the future.
The indirect impact of the Applicant’s offending was that those children, at least initially, all had to live apart from Ms Henry, and of course from the Applicant. It has led to an effective estrangement between the Applicant and Mstr K, and such negative effects would likely be repeated, and possibly amplified if the Applicant returned to offending.
Whilst I do accept that physical separation from those children would likely have an overall negative impact on them, but primarily Miss R2 and Mstr K, there is no reason they cannot maintain contact electronically. Each of those children are also old enough to travel, unaccompanied if necessary, to visit the Applicant in New Zealand on his release from custody.
I am satisfied that cancellation of the Visa is not in the best interests on Miss R1, Miss R2, or Mstr K.
Whilst there is no evidence that the Applicant has any role in Miss L’s life, there is the potential for a positive relationship to develop more readily if the Applicant remains in Australia, and so I am satisfied that it is also not in her best interests to cancel the Visa.
I weigh this consideration more heavily insofar as it relates to Miss R2 and Mstr K, and less so in respect of Miss R1, and Miss L.
Overall, I give this primary consideration moderate weight in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Expectations of the Australian Community
The fifth primary consideration requires me to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
It also notes that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen’s visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in paragraph 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered ‘very serious’ or as ‘serious.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
The Applicant submitted that, having regard to his personal circumstances, and, primarily, the impact the cancellation would have on the identified children and his family, this primary consideration should weigh in favour of revocation of cancellation of the Visa.
The Minister contended that, in accordance with principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not hold a visa on account of the serious crimes he has committed.

Overall, the Minister contended that this factor weighs very heavily against revocation.
The Applicant has engaged in conduct in breach of community expectations. I agree with the Minister’s submission that the risk of him doing so in the future is at a level properly described as unacceptable, given the limited courses he has been able to undertake to assist his rehabilitation after a long history of offending, and the static factors that he identified as causing him to engage in his most recent offence, being his medical condition and unemployment. I have also considered the volatility of his relationship with Ms Henry. Whilst I have also considered the vocational courses the Applicant is undertaking, and the relocation of Mr Allan Tamanui to Perth with Ms Alison Tamanui and Miss L, I am not satisfied that those factors sufficiently ameliorate the other issues to bring the risk of the Applicant reoffending within acceptable limits.
In weighing this consideration, I am also guided by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110. Paragraph 5.2(2) states that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to paragraph 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community.
I am satisfied, given the seriousness of the relevant conduct, that this consideration weighs heavily against revoking the Cancellation Decision.
Other considerations
Paragraph 9 of Direction no. 110 states:
1In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on Australian business interests.
Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
I must consider the legal consequences of the Cancellation Decision on the Applicant, including having regard to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[35] However, the non-refoulement issue is not engaged here.
[35] Direction no. 110 para 9.1.
There are a range of legal consequences for the Applicant of a decision not to revoke the Cancellation Decision, which include:
(a)the likelihood of him remaining in detention pending his removal to New Zealand;[36]
(b)refusal of any other visa applications he has made and cancellation of other visas he may hold;[37]
(c)a prohibition on him applying for other visas;[38] and
(d)periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[39]
[36] The Act ss 189, 196, 198.
[37] The Act s 501F.
[38] The Act s 501E.
[39] The Act s 503, special return criteria (SRC) 5001.
Generally, if the Applicant’s visa remains cancelled, he remains an unlawful non-citizen.[40] Under s 189, the Applicant must remain detained after his incarceration ends and be removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[41] On that basis, his ongoing detention should be short-lived if the Cancellation Decision is not revoked, and this does not weigh heavily in favour of revocation.
[40] The Act s 15.
[41] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313, [112]-[122] followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305 to find that the applicant’s detention had at all times been lawful.
The legal consequences I have described follow as a matter of statutory construction, and it may be said that Parliament intended them to follow for so long as the person has the status of an unlawful non-citizen. However,
Parliament must also be understood to have intended that a cancellation decision mandated under s 501(3A) may be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act, resulting in the person’s visa being restored. In that event, the adverse consequences described above will not befall them.[42]
[42] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143.
Further, I note that it is the ‘practical realities’ in ‘human terms’ of the legal consequences that are important, rather than the legal consequences in the abstract.[43] I proceed on that basis.
[43] Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003, [5] (Feutrill J), cited in CRRN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 192, [60].
I accept that the removal and visa limitations which result from a decision not to revoke the Cancellation Decision are an intended consequence of the operation of s 501.
However, that does not mean that they affect all applicants equally.
The Applicant submitted that the right of the family unit (the Applicant, his partner Ms Henry, his child, and stepchildren) to stay together should be afforded considerable weight in the assessment of this matter, especially having regard to Ms Henry’s family circumstances, the hardship caused by physical separation, and a subsequent loss of support.
I accept that submission but find that the weight I would otherwise give this factor is slightly diminished by Ms Henry’s own evidence going to the strength of the bond between her and the Applicant in that, despite her other evidence, she would visit the Applicant only once if he were deported. She provided no further elaboration or reason, save to say that she did not want to ‘go backwards into poverty’. I also take into account the Applicant’s willingness to go for a considerable time with no contact whatsoever with Mstr K.
Whilst the Minister submitted that I should give this consideration neutral weight, I am satisfied that it carries modest weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Visa.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that, taking into account the matters identified in paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) are:
The Applicant’s age and health;
Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.
The Applicant said he would face significant impediments if removed from Australia to New Zealand.
Whilst he conceded that he would be removed to an English speaking country, he says that it would likely take a substantial period of time for him to reestablish himself in a country where he has not lived for almost 20 years, and that he may be considered an ‘outsider’ if returned to New Zealand due to his long absence from the country.
The Applicant said he has limited communication with his extended family in New Zealand, and that all his close family live in Australia.
He also submitted that it is likely that all members of his family living in Australia will never be able to see him again which will exacerbate his mental health issues. There is no evidence to support either aspect of this proposition. I do not accept that none of his family would visit, given Ms Henry’s evidence that she would, Mr Allan Tamanui’s evidence as to prior visits, and Ms Elizabeth Moeke’s evidence that she would ‘always be there to support him, no matter the distance.’ I am, however, prepared to infer that the Applicant’s mental health may be affected detrimentally by his deportation.
The Applicant submitted he will most likely be without any financial or social support if he is returned to New Zealand. He will likely struggle to find a home and re-establish his life, in particular considering his debilitating arthritis.
Although it may be argued that there are government facilities in New Zealand that may assist the Applicant in managing his arthritis, the Applicant submits he will require emotional support from his partner and close family members in Australia.
The Applicant submitted this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation.
The Minister accepted that the Applicant is 41 years old and has health issues including rheumatoid arthritis and mental health stressors (including stress and anxiety), despite there being no medical evidence to corroborate these conditions.
However, the Minister contended that, to the extent that the Applicant still requires treatment, as a citizen of New Zealand the Applicant will have the same access to social, medical, mental health, and economic support as other citizens. I accept that proposition.
Given the Applicant has resided in New Zealand for many years, studied and worked in New Zealand, and has an adult son there, the Minister posited that any hardship he may face in relocating to New Zealand will be temporary, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would be unable to re-establish himself in New Zealand and maintain basic living standards. I accept this submission.
Accordingly, I will afford this consideration only moderate weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Visa.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider this issue, where relevant.
The Applicant submitted he is currently working at the music room at Wooroloo Prison Farm, which shows his willingness to seek employment once released from custody. This in turn would assist the Australian economy. I have also considered the Applicant’s contribution to the charitable organisations he identified.
However, the Applicant’s own evidence is that he has been unable to sustain employment due to his arthritis in the past, and there is no evidence of that condition having significantly improved such that his employment situation is likely to improve in the future, despite the Applicant’s willingness to work and attempts to obtain vocational qualifications.
I give this consideration neutral weight; in that it weighs neither for nor against revoking the cancellation of the Visa.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act.
I have then weighed and balanced the relevant considerations in this matter as part of a single evaluation, to determine their relative significance and decide whether I am ultimately satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
I have considered that paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that the primary consideration in paragraph 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is ‘generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations’, and that, otherwise, the relevant ‘primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the [relevant] other considerations’. This is consistent with the principle at paragraph 5.2(2), that ‘the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government’. However, this does not mean that the other considerations are secondary to the primary considerations, or that they should always be given less weight.[44] I have found no reason not to follow those qualified directions in this matter.
[44] Suleiman.
It was necessary, for transparency and due to the need to set this statement of reasons out sequentially to make it more accessible, to deal with each of the mandatory and other listed and otherwise relevant considerations in turn. However, I have considered whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked in a holistic manner, having regard to all of the relevant considerations (viewed in the manner that paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 says the listed relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed, and noting the import of paragraph 5.2).
On that basis, there is no advantage in repeating the mandatory and other considerations and describing the weight and effect I am satisfied they should each be given in my assessment.
Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the Cancellation Decision and the considerations against revocation in that manner, I am satisfied that the considerations weighing against revocation, being the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, the family violence committed by the Applicant, and the expectations of the Australian community, outweigh the considerations in favour of revocation, being the primary considerations of the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the impact on minor children, and the other considerations of the legal consequences and extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed.
In summary, having regard to all of the mandatory and otherwise permissible considerations, I am not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. I will affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The reviewable decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 6 May 2025, not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 191 (one hundred and ninety-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Suthers

.................[SGD].....................................................
Associate
Dated: 13 August 2025

Date of hearing: 17 and 18 July 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
ANNEXURE A – APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY

Date of conviction Court Date of offence Offence Result

12 March 2002 Gisborne DC (NZ) 10 January 2002 Burgles (Oth Prop) (Under $500) By Ngt
Reparation: $750

Non-Residential Periodic Detention: 3 months

30 September 2003 Lower Hutt DC (NZ) 28 September 2003 Receives Property (Under $500)
Fine: $400

Court Costs: $130

10 November 2006 Gisborne DC 6 August 2006 Disorderly Behaviour-Likely Cause Viol
To come up for sentence if called upon: 6 months

Order for Destruction

19 October 2006 Gisborne DC 11 August 2006
Breath Alcohol Level Over 400 Mcgs/Litre of Breath

Blood/Breath = 615

Fine: $500

Court Costs: $130

Disqualification from driving: 6 months

Unlicensed Driver Failed to Comply With Prohibition Convicted and Discharged

27 March 2007 Gisborne DC 4 January 2007 Disorderly Behaviour S4 S/Offences Act Convicted and Discharged

Resist Police
Community Work (SA): 275 hours

Disqualification from driving: 1 year

16 January 2007 Failure to Answer District Court Bail Convicted and Discharged

17 March 2007 Drove While Disqualified
Community Work (SA): 275 hours

Disqualified from driving: 1 year

Breath Alcohol Level Over 400 Mcgs/Litre of Breach

Blood/Breath = 897

192.    Community Work (SA): 275 hours

193.    Disqualified from driving: 1 year

21 February 2008 Gisborne DC 28 November 2007 Fighting In Public Place
Fine: $300

Court Costs: $130

17 February 2009 Gisborne DC 1 November 2008 Common Assault (Crimes Act) Manually (Family Violence) Community Work (SA): 100 hours

24 December 2008 Failure to Answer Police Bail (Family Violence) Convicted and Discharged

21 May 2009 Gisborne DC 19 April 2009 Breach of Local Liquor Ban
Fine: $200

Court Costs: $130

17 November 2009 Gisborne DC 25 June 2009 Unlicensed Driver Failed to Comply with Prohibition Fine: $500

Drive With Excess Breath Alcohol – 3^rd Or Subsequent

Blood/Breath = 584

194.    Community Work (SA): 275 hours

Indefinite Disqualification

Disqualified from driving: 1 year

17 December 2009 Gisborne DC 4 November 2009 Disorderly Behaviour S4 S/Offences Act
195.    Fine: $300

196.    Court Costs: $130

30 April 2010 Gisborne DC 11 April 2010 Common Assault – Domestic (Manually) (Family Violence) 197.    Community Work (SA): 40 hours

16 July 2010 Gisborne DC 17 June 2010 Disorderly Behaviour – Likely Cause Viol
198.    Fine: $600

199.    Court Costs: $130

28 June 2010 Failure to Answer District Court Bail 200.    Convicted and Discharged

9 August 2011 Lower Hutt DC 29 April 2011 Breach of Community Work 201.    Community Work (SA): 220 hours

26 July 2012 Brisbane Magistrates Court 9 July 2012 Commit Public Nuisance
No conviction recorded.

Fine: $250

9 March 2015 Wynnum Magistrates Court 16 October 2014 Contravene Direction or requirement
Conviction recorded.

Not further punished

24 August 2020 Perth Magistrates Court 4 June 2020 Fail to comply with request to give police personal details (Spent) Fine: $400

22 February 2024 Perth District Court of Western Australia 19 December 2021 Aggravated Burglary and Commit Offence in Dwelling Imprisonment: 4 years (concurrent)

Date of hearing:	17 and 18 July 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore

Date of conviction	Court	Date of offence	Offence	Result
12 March 2002	Gisborne DC (NZ)	10 January 2002	Burgles (Oth Prop) (Under $500) By Ngt	Reparation: $750 Non-Residential Periodic Detention: 3 months
30 September 2003	Lower Hutt DC (NZ)	28 September 2003	Receives Property (Under $500)	Fine: $400 Court Costs: $130
10 November 2006	Gisborne DC	6 August 2006	Disorderly Behaviour-Likely Cause Viol	To come up for sentence if called upon: 6 months Order for Destruction
19 October 2006	Gisborne DC	11 August 2006	Breath Alcohol Level Over 400 Mcgs/Litre of Breath Blood/Breath = 615	Fine: $500 Court Costs: $130 Disqualification from driving: 6 months
19 October 2006	Gisborne DC	11 August 2006	Unlicensed Driver Failed to Comply With Prohibition	Convicted and Discharged
27 March 2007	Gisborne DC	4 January 2007	Disorderly Behaviour S4 S/Offences Act	Convicted and Discharged
		4 January 2007	Resist Police	Community Work (SA): 275 hours Disqualification from driving: 1 year
		16 January 2007	Failure to Answer District Court Bail	Convicted and Discharged
		17 March 2007	Drove While Disqualified	Community Work (SA): 275 hours Disqualified from driving: 1 year
		17 March 2007	Breath Alcohol Level Over 400 Mcgs/Litre of Breach Blood/Breath = 897	192. Community Work (SA): 275 hours 193. Disqualified from driving: 1 year
21 February 2008	Gisborne DC	28 November 2007	Fighting In Public Place	Fine: $300 Court Costs: $130
17 February 2009	Gisborne DC	1 November 2008	Common Assault (Crimes Act) Manually (Family Violence)	Community Work (SA): 100 hours
17 February 2009	Gisborne DC	24 December 2008	Failure to Answer Police Bail (Family Violence)	Convicted and Discharged
21 May 2009	Gisborne DC	19 April 2009	Breach of Local Liquor Ban	Fine: $200 Court Costs: $130
17 November 2009	Gisborne DC	25 June 2009	Unlicensed Driver Failed to Comply with Prohibition	Fine: $500
17 November 2009	Gisborne DC	25 June 2009	Drive With Excess Breath Alcohol – 3^rd Or Subsequent Blood/Breath = 584	194. Community Work (SA): 275 hours Indefinite Disqualification Disqualified from driving: 1 year
17 December 2009	Gisborne DC	4 November 2009	Disorderly Behaviour S4 S/Offences Act	195. Fine: $300 196. Court Costs: $130
30 April 2010	Gisborne DC	11 April 2010	Common Assault – Domestic (Manually) (Family Violence)	197. Community Work (SA): 40 hours
16 July 2010	Gisborne DC	17 June 2010	Disorderly Behaviour – Likely Cause Viol	198. Fine: $600 199. Court Costs: $130
16 July 2010	Gisborne DC	28 June 2010	Failure to Answer District Court Bail	200. Convicted and Discharged
9 August 2011	Lower Hutt DC	29 April 2011	Breach of Community Work	201. Community Work (SA): 220 hours
26 July 2012	Brisbane Magistrates Court	9 July 2012	Commit Public Nuisance	No conviction recorded. Fine: $250
9 March 2015	Wynnum Magistrates Court	16 October 2014	Contravene Direction or requirement	Conviction recorded. Not further punished
24 August 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	4 June 2020	Fail to comply with request to give police personal details	(Spent) Fine: $400
22 February 2024	Perth District Court of Western Australia	19 December 2021	Aggravated Burglary and Commit Offence in Dwelling	Imprisonment: 4 years (concurrent)