Taylor and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2022] AATA 2889

Taylor and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2889 (31 August 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/4807
Re:Robert Taylor
APPLICANT

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural AffairsAnd
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Deputy President Boyle
Date:31 August 2022
Place:Perth

The decision of the delegate of the respondent dated 8 June 2022 not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act is affirmed.
...[SGD].....................................................................
Deputy President Boyle
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Migration Act s 501CA(4) – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke cancellation of applicant’s visa – whether there is “another reason” to revoke cancellation of applicant’s visa – index offence is aggravated burglary and commit offence – substantial and serious criminal history – applicant shows symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – high likelihood of the applicant re-offending – impact on victims of a decision under s 501CA where victim of family violence supports revocation of cancellation – family violence – definition of family member – there is not another reason to revoke cancellation of applicant’s visa – affirmed
Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5G(2), 499(1), 499(2A), 500(1)(ba), 501, 501(3A), 501(6), 501(6)(a), 501(7), 501(7)(c), 501(7)(d), 501CA, 501CA(4), 501CA(4)(b)(i), 501CA(4)(b)(ii)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 4
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 22(4)
Cases
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1842
CPDL and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1082
CZCV and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 91
DBX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] FCA 238
Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 115
Dore and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1750
FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 775
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; (2019) 272 FCR 454
Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 66
JNMK and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 26
Knight v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 127
Mesarich and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3296
Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591
Orario and Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 4810
Pattison and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3953
PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162
Rehman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] AATA 4424
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545
Viane v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 144
Wade and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 202
Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [202] FCA 831
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Direction No 65: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under s501CA (22 December 2014)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 79 – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under s 501CA (20 December 2018)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no 90: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (8 March 2021) para 4(1), 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(e), 4(1)(f), 4(1)(g), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i), 4(1)(j), 5.1, 5.1(3), 5.2, 6, 7, 7(2), 8, 8.1.1, 8.1.1(1)(a), 8.1.1(1)(a)(i), 8.1.1(1)(b), 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii), 8.1.1(1)(c), 8.1.1(1)(d), 8.1.1(1)(e), 8.1.1(1)(f), 8.1.2, 8.1.2(1), 8.1.2(2)(a), 8.1.2(2)(b), 8.2, 8.2(3), 8.3, 8.3(4), 8.3(4)(a), 8.3(4)(b), 8.3(4)(c), 8.3(4)(d), 8.3(4)(e), 8.3(4)(f), 8.3(4)(g), 8.3(4)(h), 8.4, 8.4(1), 8.4(2), 8.4(2)(a), 8.4(2)(b), 8.4(2)(c), 8.4(2)(d), 8.4(2)(e), 8.4(2)(f), 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.2(1)(a), 9.2(1)(b), 9.2(1)(c), 9.3, 9.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Boyle
31 August 2022
the application

The applicant seeks review of the decision of a delegate of the respondent (Minister) dated 8 June 2022[1] not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
[1] R1/8.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on 25 March 2021 on the basis that he did not pass the character test by reason of his substantial criminal record, and he was serving a full-time term of imprisonment for an offence against a law of a State.
The application for review was made on 8 May 2022 pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister made under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
THE ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether I should exercise the power in s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act to revoke the cancellation of the visa made under s 501(3A) of the Act. This will require determination of:
(a)whether the applicant passes the character test (as defined by s 501 of the Act); and
(b)if he does not pass the character test, whether there is “another reason” why the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be revoked.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The application was heard on 16 and 17 August 2022. Mr D McKenna appeared for the applicant and Ms D Jones-Bolla appeared for the Minister. The following witnesses gave evidence at the hearing:
(a)The applicant;
(b)Ms B, the applicant’s former partner;
(c)Keesha Taylor, the applicant’s daughter; and
(d)Christine Taylor, the applicant’s mother.
The following documents were admitted into evidence:
(a)The applicant’s unsigned statement dated 13 June 2022 (A1);
(b)Report of Dr Sheridan dated 5 August 2022 (A2);
(c)Statement of Ms B dated 13 June 2022 (A3);
(d)Statement of Keesha Taylor dated 20 July 2022 (A4);
(e)Statement of Christine Taylor dated 20 July 2022 (A5);
(f)G-documents filed 24 June 2022 (R1); and
(g)Tender bundle filed 8 August 2022 (R2).
The applicant also filed a bundle of material containing various statements and letters of support. While I did not mark this material with exhibit numbers, I did have these documents before me in making my decision. At the conclusion of the hearing on 17 August 2022, I made directions for the parties to provide written closing submissions by close of business Monday 22 August 2022 and any responsive submissions by close of business on Tuesday 23 August 2022. The Minister filed closing submissions by the required time, however, the applicant’s closing submissions were not received until 2:40pm on 23 August 2022. Neither party filed responsive submissions.
background
The applicant is a 49-year-old citizen of the United Kingdom (born in April 1973). He arrived in Australia as a 14-month-old with his parents and three older brothers in July 1974 and has lived in Australia since.
The applicant lived with his parents and brothers in country Western Australia. He left school at the end of year nine at the age of 14 to work in the local sawmill.[2] The sawmill closed, and the applicant was made redundant somewhere between the ages of 17 and 20.[3]
[2] A1, para 6.
[3] Transcript/27.
The applicant started offending as a juvenile in 1989, being convicted of five traffic offences and two criminal convictions attracting community service orders.[4].[5]
[4] These convictions have been spent.
[5] R2/161.
On 7 December 2020, the applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for three years and seven months (to commence on 7 May 2020) in respect of aggravated burglary in a dwelling and committing offence.[6] The applicant’s full adult criminal history is set out in the annexure.
[6] R2/156.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501(3A) of the Act relevantly provides that:
The Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:
(i)paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or
(ii)...; and
(b) the person is 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.
Section 501(6) of the Act relevantly provides:
For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); ...
(Original emphasis.)
A “substantial criminal record” is, relevantly, defined by s 501(7) of the Act as follows:
For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more;
(d) the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more;
...
(Original emphasis.)
Section 501CA of the Act relevantly provides:
(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
...
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
(Original emphasis.)
Ministerial Direction 90
Section 499(1) of the Act provides that:
(1)The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about:
(a) the performance of those functions; or
(b) the exercise of those powers.
Section 499(2A) of the Act provides that, “[a] person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1).”
On 8 March 2021 the relevant minister for the purposes of s 499 of the Act, made a direction titled “Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA” (Direction 90).[7] The commencement date for operation of Direction 90 was 15 April 2021. Upon its commencement, Direction 90 revoked the operation of “Direction no. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA”[8] (Direction 79).
[7] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no 90: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (8 March 2021).
[8] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 79 – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under s 501CA (20 December 2018).
Paragraph 5.1 sets out the objectives of Direction 90. Paragraph 5.1(3) relevantly provides:
(3) Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a fulltime basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 sets out the principles which provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA of the Act. These principles are stated to be as follows:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other noncitizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by noncitizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of Direction 90 provides that, informed by the principles set out in para 5.2, the decision-maker must take into account the considerations in paras 8 and 9 of Direction 90 (where such considerations are relevant) in order to determine whether the cancellation of the visa should be revoked.
Guidance in relation to how the relevant considerations are to be taken into account can be found in para 7 of Direction 90 which provides:
(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of Direction 90 provides:
In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the following are primary considerations:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(4) expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of Direction 90 provides:
(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), other considerations must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a)    international non-refoulement obligations;
b)    extent of impediments if removed;
c)    impact on victims;
d)    links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
ii)impact on Australian business interests.
CONSIDERATION
Failure of the character test arises as a matter of law: Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.[9] The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act (see [13] above). Under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person does not pass the character test if the person has “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act (see [14] above) provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more...”. Section 501(7)(d) of the Act provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have been “sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more”. The applicant has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling more than 12 months and he therefore has a substantial criminal record. Accordingly, he does not pass the character test.
[9] [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 66.
The applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test.[10] I am, in any event, satisfied that the applicant does not pass the character test. Accordingly, he cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the decision to cancel his visa to be revoked. The issue, therefore, is whether the power under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act should be exercised on the basis that there is another reason why the decision under s 501(3A) of the Act should be revoked (see [15] above).
[10] Applicant’s statement of facts, issues and contentions filed 2 August 2022 (applicant’s SFIC) para 37.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE ORIGINAL DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?
First primary consideration: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (para 8.1)
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 90 provides that, when decision-makers are considering the protection of the Australian community, they:
(1) ... should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should 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.
(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b) the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct (para 8.1.1)

Paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 90 provides:
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:
a)    without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
(i)violent and/or sexual crimes;
(ii)crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
(iii)acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b)    without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , [sic] or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c)    with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)    the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
e)    the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
f)     whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
g)    whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
In his statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 5 August 2022 (Minister’s SFIC), the Minister made the following submissions[11] in relation to the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending:
(a)The applicant has been convicted of a violent crime, namely, aggravated burglary in a dwelling and committing the offence.[12] As noted by the sentencing judge, the victim was vulnerable and concluded that the offending was “very serious”. The applicant knew that his co-offenders were armed and was involved in the planning of the offence.
(b)In relation to frequency of offending, the applicant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for his offending on 6 October 2016 and 7 December 2020. Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy: PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[13]
(c)The applicant’s offending has been frequent since 1989,[14] that is from the age of 16. His offending displays a disregard for Australian laws over a prolonged period of approximately 30 years.
(d)In relation to the cumulative effect of the offending,[15] there has been significant allocation of public resources to deal with the applicant’s conduct, and to attempt to promote his rehabilitation.
(e)The applicant has a significant adult criminal history involving 71 offences[16] between 1992 and 2020. The applicant has a juvenile record between 1989 and 1990 with multiple convictions.
(f)Relevant to Direction 90 para 8.1.1.(1)(b)(ii), the applicant was convicted of assault to prevent arrest on 10 August 2000 which resulted in a significant fine of $2,000.
(g)The applicant has had fines imposed against him, been the subject of community-based orders and conditional release orders, been the subject of suspended sentences, and has previously been sentenced to a period of imprisonment in 2016 and received a suspended imprisonment order in 2016, however, the applicant continued to offend.
(h)The applicant accepts that “he has a long criminal record with incidents of aggression, that has increased in seriousness the older he has become and as his addiction grew”.[17]
[11] Minister’s SFIC para 25.
[12] Direction 90 para 8.1.1(1)(a)(i).
[13] [2018] AATA 162 at [22].
[14] Direction 90 para 8.1.1(1)(d).
[15] Direction 90 para 8.1.1(1)(e).
[16] On the material before me however, it appears that the applicant has in fact been convicted of 77 offences as an adult.
[17] Applicant’s SFIC paras 43, 47.
The applicant’s SFIC makes the following contentions in relation to the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending:
(a)The applicant accepts that he has a long criminal record with incidents of aggression, that has increased in seriousness the older he has become and as his addiction grew.
(b)Despite the numerous calls to police, the applicant has never physically hurt anyone.
(c)The applicant accepts that his behaviour while on drugs was horrendous and he feels shame, sadness and remorse.
(d)The applicant’s behaviour in prison and detention when he has been drug and alcohol free is the clearest evidence of his problems being solely related to his addiction.
(e)The applicant’s former partner states that the applicant has never hit her, and that when he is not on drugs, he is a kind, caring and thoughtful person.
The particulars of the aggravated burglary and commit offence of which the applicant was convicted in 2020 are set out by Barone DCJ in her sentencing remarks,[18] which were addressed to the three co-accused, as follows:
So on 17 October last year, the complainant, [Mr G], met with Mr [S] at a clothing store. You went to a mutual friend’s house. That’s the first time you had met Mr [G]. And during the course of spending time with him he came to look after a bag of yours, and he had it in his property until you were going to get it back at a later time. You did try and contact him several times, but you weren’t able to contact – get back in contact with him.
No doubt you [Mr [S]] were concerned about the return of your property, because from your statement I can see you had been using methylamphetamine, and there was methylamphetamine in your property, I presume or I understand, and that’s what you wanted back. At about 3.20 in the morning all three of you went to the victim’s house in [deleted].
Now, the entry to the shed was forced open, and that’s where Mr [G] was living. Someone told him to turn the light on and he did. Now, Mr Taylor, it’s said that you went in first, then Mr [S], and then you, Mr [C], entered later. Mr [S], you were armed with a meat cleaver, Mr [C], you were armed with a knife, and it’s accepted that you, Mr Taylor, were not armed, but you knew that your two co-offenders were armed when you went inside.
Now, Mr [S], you accused the victim of taking your money, your drugs and a speaking [sic], I think, that was in your bag that you had left with him in his care. He denied that he had stolen anything, and you threatened him, saying words to the effect that you would put him in the boot of the car and will chop him up. No doubt that threat was very intimidating, given that you were armed with a meat cleaver at the time and Mr [C] was armed with a knife, and there were three of you inside his house at the time.
Now, whilst you were inside that premises, Mr [S], you did become aggressive. You took off your shirt, you faced up to him and you swung a punch at him, but it seems that he was able to evade that punch, and it only just brushed his face. So he was not injured during the course of this offence in a physical way. I will get on to the impact that this offence has had on him in other ways.
Now, during the course of it you were there, it would seem, to confront Mr [G] about what you thought he had taken from you, Mr [S], but, Mr Taylor, you saw the victim’s keys on the floor and you pointed them out, and it seems that Mr [C] demanded the keys, and at some point the victim gave over his phone and his keys…
The three of you then left. Someone had, obviously, the keys and the phone, and it was you, Mr [C], and you, Mr Taylor, who got into the victim’s Mitsubishi Magna and drove away, stealing his car. That isn’t a separate count on the indictment, but it’s part of what was stolen from the premises. …
Also inside the victim’s car was his wallet and other personal items. So there were other things that the victim lost on the evening.[19]
[18] R1/42–85.
[19] R1/47–9.
In relation to the impact on the victim, her Honour commented:
Now, I mentioned that it seems, fortunately, Mr [G] was not physically injured during the course of this offence, but hopefully you have each had read to you and have understood the victim impact statement that Mr [G] has written to this court, because Mr [G], no matter whether or not he had stolen something from one of you or not, and no matter whether or not he might be a man who lives in a shed, this offence has had a very big impact on him.
What Mr [G] says is that he thought he was going to die. He said that about 12 months earlier his housemate had been murdered by somebody wielding an axe, and that during this offence he thought that was going to happen to him. Now, you weren’t to know that, and I’m not going to take into account that you did know that, but it goes to show how significantly somebody might be confronted by what’s occurring to them that you don’t appreciate what is going on.
He said that this offence has actually also caused some inconvenience to him significantly in respect of the fact that his car was taken by forensics, most of his belongings were in his car, he didn’t have any clothes, he had to spend a couple of nights in a toilet block, borrowed clothes from a friend. So this has caused some humiliation to him in respect of having to sleep in a toilet block and those sorts of thing.
As a result of the offending, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety. Although he’s managing it reasonably well, he says he has felt traumatised and feels like he can’t trust anybody any more. He worries that, for example, when something bad happens, that it might have been an associate. So, for example, he talks about the fact that a car window panel was damaged later on, and he thought that might have been an associate.
…
What [he] describes is that his life was turned upside down, and he wants to try and turn things around, and that he feels like he needs to try and put his troubles behind him, but obviously this has had a fairly significant impact on him.
…
But the seriousness does need to also be determined by the circumstances of the offence, including the vulnerability of Mr [G], the victim, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. Now, in respect of Mr [G], he was vulnerable, because it was early in the morning, he was home, and he was asleep in his bed, and, in effect, the three of you ambushed him when he was not able to defend himself, because he was asleep. …
…
Of course it’s serious because he was at a place where he deserved to feel safe, which was his home, no matter how humble that home might have been. Of course what also is serious is that two of you were armed with a meat cleaver and a knife, and the fact that there were three of you. Three on one is a scary proposition.
…
… it was a stealing whilst people were armed, there were threats made, there was some use of violence. Although there was no physical injury caused to Mr [G], it caused significant psychological concern for him. He was intimidated, scared, and it has had a significant impact on him.[20]
[20] R1/51–4.
In relation to the planning of the offence, her Honour made the following comments:
Now, there was some planning in respect of this offence. I don’t think it was a very sophisticated plan, but nonetheless there was some planning. Now, I accept, Mr [C], in relation to you – and I will come to your statement – it seems that you did not and were not part of the plan initially but became involved once the offending took place. So in relation to the planning, it seems that that might be confined to Mr Taylor and Mr [S].
The applicant was also asked about his other offending. In relation to his June 2015 conviction for aggravated burglary and commit offence, the applicant agreed with the Minister’s counsel’s following description of the facts of that offence:
Essentially, that incident resulted in the charge of the aggravated burglary charge, the stealing charge and the criminal damage, or destruction of property charge, all of which you were convicted of. Just briefly, in summary, the incident, essentially, involved you and your co-accused attending the [car showroom]. You gained entry to the showroom by throwing a brick. You then stole various items to the value of approximately $7500.[21]
[21] Transcript/45.
The above description is materially consistent with the statement of material facts in relation to that incident which occurred on 4 May 2015.[22] For the offences arising out of that 4 May 2015 incident, on 29 June 2015 the applicant received two concurrent 12-month community-based orders (CBO).[23]
[22] R2/215.
[23] R2/156.
On 25 February 2016 the applicant was convicted of breaching the CBOs made on 29 June, 2015 for which he received imprisonment sentences of six and three months (cumulative), suspended for 12 months.
On 7 September 2016, that is within 12 months of the suspended sentences imposed on 25 February 2016, the applicant was convicted of possession of a prohibited drug (the date of the offence being 20 June 2016) and breaches of the suspended sentences imposed on 25 February 2016. As a result, the applicant returned to prison in October 2016 where he remained until he was released on parole on 5 April 2017.
The applicant was in prison as an adult, either on remand or serving sentences, in the following periods:
25.08.1994 – 2.09.1994
03.02.2016 – 09.02.2016
18.09.2016 – 22.09.2016
06.10.2016 – 05.04.2017
23.07.2017 – 28.08.2017
19.10.2017 – 18.05.2020
07.12.2020 – 19.02.2022.[24]
[24] R1/120.
In relation to the 17 October 2019 aggravated burglary and commit offence, the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that he was, at that time, aware that if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he could be deported.[25]
[25] Transcript/41–2.
The applicant’s evidence was that he was using methylamphetamine daily at the time that he committed that offence.[26] The applicant was taken through his criminal record in cross-examination and to the incident reports and statements of material facts relating to the various offences and incidents. He largely agreed that the facts set out in the reports and statements were correct. The applicant was also taken to a number of incident reports from his most recent time in prison[27] in which the applicant behaved disruptively or aggressively towards other prisoners or staff. He was taken to the summary in the Parole Review Report[28] which detailed six incidents from December 2020 to March 2021. He agreed that the incidents as described had occurred.[29]
[26] Transcript/42.
[27] Transcript/61 onwards.
[28] R2/133–4.
[29] Transcript/66.
The applicant was also taken various incident reports and statements of material facts relating to domestic incidents involving the applicant and police. The applicant confirmed that he had been in a de facto relationship with Ms B from 2003 to 2018.[30] The applicant and Ms B have two children, now aged 15 and 13. The earliest of these reports was a Western Australian Police Force Detected Incident Report dated 21 April 2006[31] in which it was reported that a witness had seen the applicant drag Ms B along the ground. The applicant’s evidence was that he could not recall this incident.
[30] Transcript/69.
[31] R2/299.
The applicant was then taken to a police incident report from October 2009[32] which recorded a verbal argument between the applicant and Ms B. That report also noted that the applicant and Ms B’s two children, then aged nearly three years and one year, were present but they did not appear to be upset and were not crying. The applicant could remember that incident and confirmed that there was no violence and that the incident report accurately recorded what had occurred.[33]
[32] R2/294.
[33] Transcript/75.
The next report to which the applicant was taken was a detected incident report produced under summons from the WA Police dated 31 January 2012, again involving the applicant and Ms B.[34] The applicant and Ms B’s two children were again noted as being present. Police attended the applicant and Ms B’s residence and issued the applicant a 24-hour police order. No violence was noted. The applicant agreed that the incident report was an accurate record of what had occurred.[35]
[34] R2/292.
[35] Transcript/76.
The next incident that the applicant was asked about was one noted in a police incident report dated 12 March 2012,[36] which recorded a witness as having reported a verbal argument between the applicant and Ms B and the applicant having “dragged her by the hair into the vehicle”. The report also noted the applicant being intoxicated when the police attended the residence and the two children as being asleep in the car while the applicant was inside the house. A further police order was issued. When asked by the Minister’s counsel whether the report was “an accurate description of what occurred on 12 March 2012”, the applicant responded “yes”.[37] The following exchange then took place:
TRIBUNAL:     I just need to be clear on that. By saying you agree it’s an accurate    report, you’re agreeing, I take it, that you had dragged Ms [B] by the   hair into the vehicle, even though you said you couldn’t remember?
APPLICANT:   I agreed to it because I can’t remember because I was drunk.
TRIBUNAL:     Okay. If something is put to you, don’t agree to it if you can’t    remember.
APPLICANT    All right.[38]
[36] R2/291.
[37] Transcript/77.
[38] Transcript/77.
The applicant was then taken to an incident report dated 9 November 2012[39] involving what is described as a verbal argument between the applicant, Ms B and Ms B’s mother which resulted in a further 24-hour police order being issued to the applicant. The applicant agreed that the report was accurate.[40]
[39] R2/289.
[40] Transcript/79.
The next report to which the applicant was taken was a police incident report dated 9 November 2014 (R2/278). The report noted the applicant’s and Ms B’s two children as being present when the applicant and Ms B had an argument over Ms B using Facebook and the applicant trying to grab the phone from Ms B. The applicant’s evidence was that he had no recollection of this incident.[41]
[41] Transcript/80.
The applicant was asked about a similar police incident report dated 13 September 2015.[42] His evidence was that he could not recall that incident. He was taken to the second page of that police incident report[43] which, under the heading “Previous Violence: Has the Perpetrator ever previously hurt the Victim?”, the answer inserted was “Yes”. The applicant was asked whether that was correct to which his answer was “That’s what’s marked on the report, yes”.[44]
[42] R2/275.
[43] R2/276.
[44] Transcript/85.
The applicant was then taken to a police incident report dated 9 December 2015[45] which recorded a verbal argument between the applicant and Ms B. The applicant’s evidence was that he had no recollection of that incident.[46]
[45] R2/272.
[46] Transcript/86.

As noted at [41] above, the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that he had been in a de facto relationship with Ms B from 2003 to 2018. That evidence changed, or was qualified, later in the applicant’s evidence. The applicant’s later evidence was that he and Ms B had “…split up a few times” in that period.[47]
[47] Transcript/83.
The applicant was taken to the police incident report dated 3 January 2019.[48] The report records an incident between the applicant and Ms B and notes that the applicant and Ms B’s two children were present as was the applicant’s adult son. This report notes that the applicant and Ms B’s had “recently separated for approximately 3 months”. The following exchange took place in relation to this report:
[48] R2/263.
COUNSEL:     It goes on to state, Mr Taylor, that the victim said - so Ms [B] said that                    she didn’t want to be in a relationship with you any more mainly   because of your drug use and violence that occurs while you are   using. Would you accept that that’s an accurate description of the   reason why Ms [B] didn’t want to?
APPLICANT:   Yes.
…
COUNSEL:     It goes on to state that you’ve gone around to the address at about 2                     am on 3 January 2019, Ms [B] has told you that you are not welcome   to stay. You’ve left the area and the victim - so Ms [B] - was unsure   as to where you went as you don’t really have anywhere else to live.   It goes on to state that you then returned to the address at   approximately 5 am. You have forced entry into the house through   the front door, damaging the door slightly. You have walked through   the house yelling at the victim who was asleep in the living room. You   approached the victim grabbed - you approached Ms [B], grabbed   her by the hair, the witness - so your son, Tyrone, and Ms [B], have    informed you that they were calling the police and that they were on   their way. You’ve then left the house and departed in an unknown   direction on a pushbike. Mr Taylor, do you recall that incident?
APPLICANT:   Yes
COUNSEL:     You do? Is that an accurate description as to what occurred there?   APPLICANT: Yes.
COUNSEL:     And just to be clear, Mr Taylor, you approached Ms [B] and grabbed    her by the hair. Is that correct?
APPLICANT:   Yes.
COUNSEL:     You walked through the house, yelling at Ms [B], who was asleep in    the living room, is that correct?
APPLICANT:   Yes.
COUNSEL:     Yes, and through the course of that incident your two children,    [omitted] and [omitted] and your son, Tyrone, were present and -   were present, weren’t they?   APPLICANT: Yes.[49]
[49] Transcript/89–90.
The applicant agreed that police incident reports dated 6 January 2019[50] and 8 January 2019[51] describing the applicant as being verbally abusive to Ms B (in the presence of the two children) and, in relation to the 8 January 2019 incident, being in breach of a police 72-hour order, were accurate.[52] The police were also called to incidents at the applicant and Ms B’s residence on 12 January 2019[53] and 27 January 2019.[54] The applicant’s evidence was that he could not remember the 12 January 2019 incident[55] but confirmed the accuracy of the 27 January 2019 police incident report.[56]
[50] R2/259.
[51] R2/255.
[52] Transcript/91.
[53] The police incident report at R2/251 identified one of the children as the victim.
[54] The police incident report at R2/247 identified Ms B as the victim.
[55] Transcript/95.
[56] Transcript/95.
The applicant was asked about a police incident report dated 17 February 2019[57] which resulted in a 72-hour police order being issued to the applicant. The applicant breached that order the following day.[58] A further incident on 29 March 2019 resulted in a further 72-hour police restraining order being issued.[59] The applicant agreed that those reports were accurate.
[57] R2/243.
[58] Transcript/97.
[59] R2/318.
In assessing the seriousness of the applicant’s offending and other conduct against the considerations identified in para 8.1.1 of Direction 90 (see [28] above), I find that:
(a)Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) – the Minister contends that the aggravated burglary and commit offence in a dwelling of which the applicant was convicted in December 2020, was a violent offence for the purposes of sub-para (i) (see [28] above). The Minister points to the sentencing judge’s reference to the victim being vulnerable. While there were threats of violence made against the victim and various other offences committed in that incident, there was, as far as the judge’s sentencing remarks and other evidence indicate, no actual violence, although the judge notes that one of the applicant’s co-accused swung a punch at the victim which the victim was able to avoid. However, I am satisfied that the applicant has engaged in family violence. That was conceded by the applicant’s counsel at the hearing and by the applicant in his evidence at the hearing. I deal with that in more detail below under the second primary consideration, family violence.
The applicant was also convicted of assault to prevent arrest in August 2000 and fined $2000 (see annexure).
(b)Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) – there are two incidents which could come within the ambit of this paragraph. The first is the aggravated burglary and commit offence in a dwelling in relation to which Barone DCJ noted that the victim was vulnerable[60] because he was asleep at the time the applicant and his co-accused entered the dwelling (see [31] above). The second is the assault to prevent arrest in August 2000 which would properly be characterised as an offence against a government official in the performance of their duties.
(c)Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) – the three-year and seven-month term of imprisonment imposed by the court in respect of the aggravated burglary and commit offence in a dwelling is clearly a significant sentence reflecting the seriousness of the applicant’s offending. The other terms of imprisonment have been at the lower end of the range of possible sentences.
(d)Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) – the applicant’s offending has been frequent. He has been convicted of 84 offences since 1989 (including those offences he committed as a minor). There do appear to have been periods during which the applicant did not offend (February 1996 – June 2000, August 2001 – June 2005, April 2006 – November 2009), however, from 2011 the applicant’s offending has been frequent and of increasing seriousness. That may well be, as the applicant contends, a result of his growing addiction (see [30(a)] above). Whatever the reason, there is a trend of increasing seriousness in the applicant’s offending.
(e)Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) – the “cumulative effect” of the applicant’s offending is, firstly, that it indicates a disregard for the law and for other members of the Australian community. This is particularly demonstrated by his repeated breaches of CROs, restraining orders and other police orders, and by the fact that while he drove, as a matter of course it seems, he did not hold a driver’s licence until he was in gaol in 2016. Secondly, his record cumulatively shows that the applicant has failed to gain any measure of deterrent effect from the sentencing regime that has been imposed on him. It appears that he learnt nothing from the predominantly non-custodial sentences and suspended sentences initially imposed. Even the imprisonment of the applicant for breaches of his suspended sentences and CBOs appeared to have had no salutary effect on the applicant. Thirdly, the applicant’s repeat offending has consumed an inordinate amount of law enforcement and court resources.
(f)Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(f) and 8.1.1(1)(g) – not relevant in this case.
[60] Direction 90 para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii).
The applicant’s concession that his criminal record is “long” underplays the seriousness of many of the offences of which he has been convicted. While there are many driving offences and offences which could be described as public disorder, there are serious offences, in particular the aggravated burglary and commit and offence in a dwelling and the aggravated burglary and commit offence which are, in themselves, serious offences. Even in relation to the applicant’s many driving offences, Tribunals and courts have found that such offences, are serious, particularly when committed with the frequency and clear disregard for the law.[61] I accept, as the applicant submits, that the applicant’s offending has not been “characterised by violence,”[62] however, I find that the applicant’s criminal record is still serious.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (para 8.1.2)
[61] See JNMK and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 26 [50]–[55] and the cases referred to therein.
[62] Applicant’s reply submissions filed 11 August 2022 (applicant’s reply) para 2.
Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 90 relevantly provides:
(1) In 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.
(2) In 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 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 non-citizen re-offending; and
ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
…
The Tribunal in CZCV and Minister for Home Affairs[63] at [56] summarised the task for the decision-maker as follows:
In summary, the Tribunal is required to assess whether the Applicant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community. In order to make this assessment, the Tribunal is assisted by the following passage from Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSCA 213; (2013) 41 VR 359, [111]; [2013] VSCA 213 (which was cited with approval by Mortimer J in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 at [95], as well as Gilmour J in WAD 230/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2015] FCA 705 at [42]- [43]):
An unacceptable risk thus requires consideration of the likelihood of offending and, if it eventuates, what the consequences of such offending are likely to be. Whether a risk is unacceptable will depend not only upon the likelihood of it becoming reality but also on the seriousness of the consequences if it does.
[63] [2019] AATA 91.
In BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[64] Moshinsky J stated, at [68]:
... there is no statutory constraint on the way that the Minister assesses risk, save that whatever he or she takes into account must be logical and rational.
[64] [2016] FCA 1181.
While the Tribunal and the Court in the above cases (and in the cases referred to therein) were considering visa cancellation in the context of predecessors to Direction 90, given the similarity in the wording of the several Ministerial Directions, the same considerations and principles apply to the present case. I adopt the approach indicated in the above cases.
Nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community (para 8.1.2(2)(a))
The Minister contends that the nature of the harm that would be caused if the applicant were to reoffend is serious and is likely to involve significant physical, psychological and financial harm to members of the Australian community such that the Australian community would have little tolerance for any likelihood of reoffending and future harm.[65] He contends that because of the applicant’s lengthy and varied criminal history, a broad range of harms may befall members of the Australian community if he were to reoffend.
[65] Minister’s SFIC para 28.
The Minister contends that, given the dire ramifications that could be inflicted upon individual, businesses and the wider community, any risk of the applicant committing further offences is unacceptable.
The applicant made limited submissions in relation to the nature of the harm to the community or to individuals if the applicant were to reoffend, but rather concentrated on the risk of the applicant re-offending.
I agree with the Minister’s assessment of the harm that would be caused if the applicant were to reoffend. Barone DCJ in sentencing the applicant outlined the impact of the aggravated burglary and commit offence on the victim of that offence (see [31] above). The effect on victims and the cost to the community, including the waste of police and court resources, in relation to the applicant’s other offending is also serious.
The applicant’s significant record of driving offences is also of concern. While obviously at the lower end of criminality, the Tribunal and courts have consistently held that the potential harm inherent in driving offences is not insignificant.[66]
[66] See JNMK at [44]; see also the comments of Senior Member Dr Evans-Bonner in Mesarich and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3296 at [79] and Barsby and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3296 at [52] and the cases cited therein.
The harm that would be caused to the community or to individual members of the community if the applicant were, in the future, to engage in the offending that he has in the past is serious. However, I do not accept the Minister’s submission that the applicant’s conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated is such that any risk of the applicant committing further offences is unacceptable.[67]
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct – risk of re-offending (para 8.1.2(2)(b))
[67] Direction 90 paras 8.1.2(1) and 8.1.2(2)(a).
The applicant made the following submissions in his SFIC. The applicant:
(a)has a significant criminal record, typical of someone who has suffered from addiction;
(b)commenced his rehabilitation on his own volition prior to his last stint of incarceration while he was on bail in the community;
(c)organised and was granted approval to participate in the St John of God Southwest Community Alcohol and Drug Service upon release;
(d)participated in Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings regularly in prison and online meetings since being in immigration detention. The applicant has also participated in other rehabilitative programs as outlined in his parole application;[68]
[68] R1/591.
(e)has reiterated his desire to live a drug and alcohol-free life and has deep regret for the pain he has brought to his mother, siblings and children especially;
(f)has demonstrated his capacity to commit to sobriety when he gave up drinking after the birth of his last daughter in 2008;
(g)has demonstrated his ability to abstain from drugs within the community as evidenced by the random urine test undertaken in prison and whilst on stringent parole;
(h)he is supported in this appeal by all of his children, nieces, nephews and brothers who want him to return home. He will also have the support of the parents of his ex-partner, neighbours and community members to support his rehabilitation and ongoing management of his addictive behaviour;
(i)was an “active and engaged’ participant” of the Pathways program;
(j)is actively managing his shoulder pain and has definitive plans to have a remedial operation as soon as possible;
(k)is older and more mature now than when he offended;
(l)has made positive plans to start work and continue with his leather work;
(m)recognises the devastation and negative impact drugs have on society and states his shock and awareness, particularly within prison as he witnessed drug addicted people enter the system;
(n)has been a model prisoner and detainee who has focused on helping others in a social and positive way;
(o)is living a positive, prosocial life, even through very stressful times in prison and detention, has not reoffended and has maintained employment and provided support to fellow prisoners/detainees;
(p)undertakes regular drug and alcohol testing and demonstrates he has abstained from being persuaded by negative influences within the system;
(q)has supported other inmates through official mentoring programs and worked throughout his time and has received positive reports and comments from staff;
(r)is considered to have a low risk of reoffending in all assessments undertaken by prison management; and
(s)was rated at a level of “medium” for security purposes throughout his incarceration because of his visa status, which was not related to his character or compliance.[69]
[69] Applicant’s SFIC para 48.
Based on the above factors, the applicant submits that he “must be assessed as an acceptable risk to the Australian community”. While he has a long criminal record, the applicant contends that he has seen the damage that his addiction has done to his family, which motivates him to be certain that he will not commit such an offence again.[70]
[70] Applicant’s SFIC para 49.
The applicant’s closing submissions made the following further submissions on the likelihood of his reoffending:
(a)The applicant is genuinely remorseful. Being imprisoned for a term of three years and seven months and having his visa cancelled has given him greater insight into his offending and caused him deep shock. It is the first time that the applicant has realised that there is a real chance that he will be removed from Australia and separated from his family and children permanently.
(b)He has had the chance to reflect on the pain that his offending has caused to his family and has “fortified his commitment to rehabilitation”.
(c)The evidence of forensic psychologist Dr Lorraine Sheridan[71] was that:
[71] Dr Sheridan provided a report (A2) and gave evidence at the hearing.
(i)While she did not perform psychometric tests or diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), her observations of the applicant’s behaviour and his responses were consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD. Dr Sheridan applied the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-Plus) (which she describes in her report as a standardised self-report psychological test that screens across 22 domains of psychological functioning.[72] This led Dr Sheridan to consider that the applicant has symptoms of PTSD.
[72] A2, para 9.
(ii)Most of the applicant’s offending is drug and alcohol related.
(iii)The applicant’s use of methylamphetamine may have been a form of self-medication.
(iv)Being detained pending removal from Australia has had a significant ongoing impact of the applicant’s mental health.
(v)The applicant has been significantly scared by the prospect of being removed from Australia and from his family which lowers his risk of re-offending.
(vi)Counselling combined with ADHD medication would significantly lower the risk of the applicant re-offending.
(vii)In her experience a person with a similar history of offending to that of the applicant would not seek services independently and, in any event, they would be sparce and lacking in the Southwest of Western Australia. It took the reality of the second period of incarceration for him to seek drug rehabilitation treatment in 2020.
(viii)The applicant was a low risk of re-offending for the following reasons:
A.He had been truthful in his session with her and open and honest about his drug use and had spoken about his offences, including incidents of family violence.
B.His truthful acknowledgment combined with his proactive plans for treatment and his future reflected a positive outlook which is integral in considering the seriousness of offending and the risk of him re-offending.
C.Considering the long period of his addiction, Dr Sheridan was impressed that the limited rehabilitation and treatment he had been able to undergo showed positive effect.
D.Considering the long period of his addiction, the applicant’s offending was surprisingly absent of physically violent offences, particularly pertaining to domestic and family members.
E.Many addicts of amphetamine-based drugs are undiagnosed neurodivergent people and that once they have appropriate treatment and medication, they no longer seek illegal drugs which leads to criminal behaviour.
(d)The WA Department of Justice Treatment Assessment Report dated 23 March 2021,[73] assessed the applicant as being a “high risk” of reoffending because of his methamphetamine use. He was recommended to the Pathways program, which he completed on 9 September 2022.
[73] R2/144.
(e)The applicant had gained great insight concerning his triggers and the impact of his behaviour on his family and the community at the completion of the Pathways course which has informed his decisions.
(f)The applicant has a large family who are all willing to see him remain in Australia. They travelled to Perth to give evidence at short notice shows their commitment to the applicant.
(g)The applicant has been accepted into a counselling and rehabilitation program upon release.
(h)The applicant’s offending is directly related to his drug addiction, which is evidenced by his positive behaviour whilst he has been gaol and detention.
(i)The applicant should be assessed as an acceptable risk to the Australian community because of:
(i)his ongoing commitment to drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment;
(ii)his greater awareness of the effects of his offending and its effect upon his family, particularly the youngest daughters;
(iii)his dedication to investigate and pursue the issues concerning his neurodivergence identified by Dr Sheridan;
(iv)support from his large and supportive family; and
(v)his mature age and stage of life, which he has become acutely aware of whilst in detention and being physically away from his home and family.

The Minister’s closing submissions were as follows:
(a)Dr Sheridan’s assessment of the risk of re-offending and the risk that the applicant posed to the Australian community were qualified. She opined that “if counselling were combined with ADHD medication, then Mr Taylor’s risk to the Australian community would be very low.” This does not assist the Tribunal to assess the applicant’s current risk of reoffending in circumstances where the applicant has not received the counselling and ADHD medication recommended by Dr Sheridan. Dr Sheridan also reported during her oral evidence that untreated ADHD increased the risk of reoffending.
(b)The applicant’s evidence was that he has not seen anybody in prison or detention for his mental health issues and he has only spoken to Dr Sheridan in respect of a medico-legal assessment for the purposes of his Tribunal application. While he takes Endep (an antidepressant) he said this was for “sleeping” and doesn’t assist to address his treatment needs when there is no diagnosis of depression. Dr Sheridan also confirmed that she did not diagnose PTSD and ADHD because the assessment that she undertook was not long enough.
(c)Dr Sheridan’s evidence was that it was difficult for the applicant to get help in a small community in the past (and relevantly the applicant proposes on returning to a small community) and that times of great stress were a trigger for the applicant’s substance abuse. It is likely that the applicant’s future will have “times of great stress” and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will not return to methylamphetamine use. The applicant also accepted that in times of crisis he resorts to the use of methylamphetamine.
(d)The evidence is that the applicant has a lengthy and significant history of alcohol and illicit drug use which has been minimally treated with five appointments with South West Community Alcohol and Drug Services (SWCADS) in 2020,[74] 100 hours under the Pathways program[75] and an incomplete program through Villawood detention.
[74] R1/617.
[75] Pathways program completion certificate dated 9 September 2021, unpaginated, included in the Applicant’s bundle of documents.
(e)The applicant’s sobriety has not been tested in the community and despite his incarceration he has managed to gain access to opioid medication without a prescription on two occasions.[76] The applicant also told the Tribunal that he was still using cannabis while attending the counselling sessions at SWCADS. The applicant also has undiagnosed and untreated mental health conditions which may comprise of PTSD and ADHD.
[76] R2/90; R2/144.
(f)The best evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant’s present risk is set out in the treatment assessment report dated March 2021 where the applicant was assessed as a medium risk of violent recidivism and high risk of general recidivism[77] and this should be accepted over the evidence of Dr Sheridan.
[77] R2/144.
(g)Dr Sheridan conceded that she did not specialise in the impact of long-term drug use on brain function. In cross-examination it was put to Dr Sheridan that her opinion that the applicant’s behaviour in prison was due to him withdrawing from drugs in the first few months of being in prison, was inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence and the contemporaneous records which evidenced that the applicant had ceased methylamphetamine use in October 2019, more than one year prior to his first incident in prison. Dr Sheridan said that even after 14 months of abstinence there can be significant impact on brain function and that there could even be permanent brain function impairment.
(h)Dr Sheridan was also not provided with relevant information and therefore did not have a complete or accurate history. In particular:
(i)she did not undertake a detailed assessment, and she did not go into the level of detail where she obtained details as to when the applicant started and stopped using alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine. Dr Sheridan’s opinion is that the applicant has experienced repeated behavioural, interpersonal and psychosocial problems because of his excessive drug use. A detailed and accurate history of the applicant’s drug and alcohol abuse would be critical information in formulating a view as to the reasons behind his offending.
(ii)Dr Sheridan also did not obtain any history of drug use in the applicant’s family. Relevantly the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that one of his adult children used methylamphetamine and they would use that drug together. The evidence at the hearing also indicated that other members of the applicant’s family used cannabis and alcohol regularly. The Tribunal relevantly has no evidence about the impact on the applicant’s sobriety if he is surrounded by family members consuming alcohol and illicit substances.
(iii)Dr Sheridan was not provided with the records produced under summons including the records from WA Police which included the statement of material facts and the incident reports pertaining to family violence. Her understanding of the applicant’s offences is extremely limited.
(iv)Dr Sheridan was of the view that the applicant had ceased his methylamphetamine use because of five sessions of counselling with SWCADS and not because of a period of incarceration whilst on remand between 19 October 2019 to 18 May 2020. When this was put to her, she refused to concede the point and instead said that it was likely a combination of incarceration and SWCADS despite the counselling sessions occurring almost one year after the applicant claimed he ceased using methylamphetamine. The applicant said he ceased methylamphetamine in October 2019 which coincides with his intake into Bunbury Regional Prison for seven months.
(v)Dr Sheridan was only aware of two incidents of family violence and did not have the complete history of family violence as set out in the records from the WA Police which recorded 17 family violence reports between the applicant and his former partner, Ms B. Dr Sheridan said it would be relevant to know how frequent and how consistent the family violence behaviour occurred and that whether there were children present at these incidents would be relevant to forming her opinion.
(i)In relation to the applicant’s claim that the presence of his family is a protective factor against re-offending, the Minister submitted that the evidence showed that:
(i)One of the applicant’s adult children was a methylamphetamine user and they used methylamphetamine together.
(ii)The applicant’s brother and adult son use cannabis.
(iii)The applicant’s daughter with whom he intends to live if he is allowed to stay in Australia was not aware of the applicant’s use of methylamphetamine until 2014, some ten years after the applicant started using that drug. She herself has used cannabis in the past and consumes alcohol.
(iv)Ms B was not aware of the applicant’s use of methylamphetamine for almost ten years after he started using that drug. Ms B also uses cannabis and consumes alcohol.
(v)The applicant’s mother was not aware of the applicant’s use of methylamphetamine until 10 years after he commenced using that drug and was not aware of his cannabis use for some 14 years after he started using cannabis.
(j)In circumstances where his family were not aware of his methamphetamine use for a period of about 10 years and in circumstances where they engage in alcohol and illicit drug use, they cannot be a protective factor to the applicant in any meaningful way.
(k)The applicant’s daughter with whom he intends to live if allowed to stay and the applicant’s mother had little understanding of the extent of the applicant’s criminal offending. In the absence of such information, the evidence they provide in relation to the applicant’s character must be given limited weight.
(l)The applicant claims that he has demonstrated his sobriety when he gave up drinking after the birth of his daughter in 2008.[78] This is contrary to his evidence at the hearing and the contemporaneous records and should not be accepted by the Tribunal.
(m)The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that he knew that his offending in 2019 could result in the cancellation of his visa and “deportation” and that did not prevent him from committing the aggravated burglary in a dwelling and commit offence 2019.
(n)Given:
(i)the very serious nature of the applicant’s offending;
(ii)the grievous harm that could be caused to individuals, businesses and the wider community if he reoffends; and
(iii)the applicant’s unresolved and continuing treatment needs in respect of his illicit substance abuse (and mental health and other trauma);
the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revocation.
[78] Applicant’s SFIC para 48.
As noted above, Dr Sheridan, a forensic psychologist, provided a report[79] and gave evidence at the hearing. Her curriculum vitae (attached to her report) stated that she is registered as a general psychologist and a forensic psychologist with AHPRA, the National Registration Board. She has provisional status as she is transitioning from overseas, having worked as a chartered forensic psychologist and psychologist practitioner in the UK, qualifying in 2004. She is an adjunct associate professor of psychology at Curtin University. In 2001 she was awarded a PhD in psychology from the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. In her report, Dr Sheridan made the following comments and findings:
[79] A2.
1.[The applicant’s lawyer] requested that I undertake an independent psychological assessment of Mr Taylor’s likelihood of reoffending, the level of risk he would present to the Australian community if he were allowed to reintegrate into the community, and what the impact may be to his mental health if he were forced to return to the United Kingdom.
…
4.To conduct this assessment, I had a Webex interview with Mr Taylor on 4th August 2022. This interview lasted for one and a half hours. In addition to the clinical interview, I remotely administered psychological assessment in the form of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-Plus).
…
8.Mr Taylor did report that he is experiencing severe ongoing sciatica…
…
10.… Mr Taylor’s scores show that he admitted to a history of illegal behaviour and legal difficulties. Responses to PAI subscales suggested that he did not attempt to paint a false or exaggerated picture of psychiatric disturbance. Responses also suggested that, compared with samples of people with a criminal history, Mr Taylor was relatively open and forthright.
11.Mr Taylor’s scores on the clinical scales of the PAI indicated that he admitted to experiencing significant problems related to drug use, and that he is likely to meet criteria for a drug use disorder. The scores suggested that he is likely to have used drugs excessively, to have little control over his drug use, and to have experienced repeated behavioural, interpersonal, and psychosocial problems because of this use. Mr Taylor also reported some phobic symptoms, indicating that he is likely to present with some heightened fears and possibly with social anxiety.
12.The PAI results suggested that Mr Taylor is likely to have co-occurring psychiatric and substance use problems. Co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders increase the severity of both disorders, often requiring integrated treatments that deal with both the mental health and substance use problems.
13.Compared with others in correctional settings, the pattern of Mr Taylor’s scores suggests that he overall less likely to engage in antisocial and aggressive behaviours within an institutional setting. His profile also suggests that he acknowledges significant difficulties in his current functioning and reports a desire to make lifestyle changes.
…
15.… Mr Taylor endorsed an item that may be indicative of traumatic stress, and this concerned being troubled by memories of a bad experience. This, and my conversation with Mr Taylor, led me to explore the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
…
18.… I asked Mr Taylor a series of questions, and his responses were all consistent with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
19.The scientific research literature recognises a link between ADHD and methamphetamine use. The risk-taking features of ADHD can fuel illicit drug use, and in turn methamphetamine can be used as a form of self-medication for the core for symptoms of ADHD…. I feel that Mr Taylor would greatly benefit from being fully assessed for ADHD and being prescribed an amphetamine based daily medication. Amphetamine based medications are the standard treatment for ADHD. Control of his ADHD symptoms could further aid Mr Taylor in staying free of illicit drugs.
…
22.The vast majority of Mr Taylor’s criminal history involves problems and behaviours relating to his addictions. Mr Taylor has been an addict for many years. Unfortunately, he was frequently punished by the legal system rather than being rehabilitated.
…
29.When he first went to prison, Mr Taylor was experiencing drug withdrawal effects. He said he was stressed and agitated and received seven write ups in his first month following episodes of arguing and shouting. Since this time, he has made positive changes and has treated staff and fellow inmates and detainees respectfully. …
…
31.The drug and alcohol counselling that Mr Taylor received was initiated by him and took place on a voluntary basis. His counsellor has said that if Mr Taylor is released, counselling can immediately resume. When I asked about the counselling, Mr Taylor was very enthusiastic and described it as life changing. He said that for many years he struggled with addiction alone and since he engaged in counselling he now knows the triggers and pathways for drug use and also how to locate and use positive coping mechanisms. I am of the view that if counselling were combined with ADHD medication, then Mr Taylor’s risk to the Australian community would be very low. It is notable that the key offence that led to Mr Taylor’s jail sentence did not involves any violence on the part of Mr Taylor and that at the time he was taking large amounts of methamphetamine. It is also relevant that Mr Taylor’s past offending was not generally against the community. Rather, it was primarily drug related. The key offence that led to his imprisonment was against a man who was also a drug addict and who bought and sold illicit substances. Although Mr Taylor is not computer literate, he is working hard to complete a computer-based drug and alcohol course.
…
33.Mr Taylor talked about the incidents of family violence where he has been recorded as the perpetrator. I do not wish to minimise the terrible impact of family violence, but as an international expert in family violence, I would not assess these incidents to be severe. I note that Mr Taylor grabbed one of his partners by the hair on one occasion and also that he threw a bowl onto the ground. …
34.Mr Taylor said that he knows he has done wrong, and he will now do right. He plans to be a role model for his children and grandchildren. I am of the view that Mr Taylor now has the capacity to do this, and his addiction and related offending was due at least in part to experiencing childhood trauma and self-medicating his ADHD. I am also of the view that he could attempt to take his own life if deported and that he is ready to make amends and make a success of his life. Although his offending history is long, I am of the opinion that being appropriately medicated for ADHD and continuing with drug counselling would radically reduce his risk of reoffending. ADHD is an unusual disorder in that it can immediately managed by the prescribing of medication. As such, Mr Taylor’s road to recovery and community reintegration could be relatively short.
The only instrument administered by Dr Sheridan was the PAI-Plus which she described as “a standardised self-report psychological test that screens across 22 domains of psychological functioning.”[80] Dr Sheridan did not apply any of what are commonly described as structured risk assessment instruments such as the “Historical, Clinical and Risk Management – 20” (HCR-20) or the “Psychopathy Checklist – Revised” (PCL-R) in making an assessment of the applicant’s risk of reoffending. At the hearing Dr Sheridan explained why she had not used any of the standard risk assessment tools:
I’m happy to tell you why I didn’t use an actuarial risk assessment tool in this case, if that would help you… I’m very into these tests. For instance, I was employed a few years ago by the Scottish Risk Management Authority to do a massive overview for them on all these tests. I’ve actually created at least two of my own and the problem is a lot of these tests are very helpful but they are just one tool and the majority that we tend to use in these kinds of cases - not these kinds of cases of Mr Taylor, these kinds of cases, tribunals and criminal courts, and the like. They look at very, very specific outcomes. They’re looking at increased risk of very specific things, particular forms of violence, or general violence, or sexual offending, or child sexual offending, et cetera, et cetera. They’re absolute rubbish for drug users and drug-related offending, which is why I chose, on the basis of the scientific literature on it, or to which I’ve contributed, not to use a standardised and validated tool in this case because they weren’t standardised or validated on drug using populations.[81]
[80] A2 para 9.
[81] Transcript/185.
I put to Dr Sheridan that, insofar as she made assessments of the applicant’s risk of re-offending in her report, they were qualified assessments. I took Dr Sheridan to para 31 of her report (see [69] above) and asked:
Now, that’s conditional. What is the likelihood of the applicant complying with ADHD medication and receiving appropriate counselling?
to which Dr Sheridan replied:
I think it’s high likelihood for two reasons. Number one, as I’ve written in the report, ADHD is a very rare thing because it is life changing. When that medication is prescribed, it is like to being reborn and people do tend to see a huge reduction in risk behaviour, in drug use and just in impulsivity. It’s known that people with ADHD, it’s a minimum of three and a half times harder for them to just do any of the normal things that other people do every day. So, when they get back on to the level of other people - or get placed on the level, for the first time, of other people, then things tend to go very well indeed. Also, Mr Taylor, because of all the trauma he’s experienced by ending up in detention, I do feel that this great big sword of Damocles involving a possible deportation in the future would basically scare him, as well as the - you know, the more traditional group counselling and medication but would also scare him into just absolutely not misbehaving. I do feel that would over-ride the addiction, if he had the medication and counselling (indistinct).[82]
[82] Transcript/185.
While Dr Sheridan clearly has wide experience as a forensic psychologist, her assessment in paras 31 and 34 of her report as to the risk of the applicant reoffending, were qualified by the assumption that he would continue to undertake counselling and maintain his ADHD medication. While Dr Sheridan explained her reason for not using one of the structured risk assessment tools as being that they are “absolute rubbish for drug users … because they weren’t standardised or validated on drug using populations”[83] (see [70] above), it was not clear to me from her report or her evidence at the hearing, what the scientific basis of her assessment was. I am also concerned that when factors that Dr Sheridan had identified in her report as being supportive of a conclusion or assessment made by her were shown not to be supported by the evidence, she would not concede that that would change her assessment. The Minister’s closing submissions identify an example of this as being Dr Sheridan’s assessment that the applicant’s disruptive behaviour when he first went to prison was the result of him going through drug withdrawal, yet the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that he had stopped using methylamphetamine 14 months before being imprisoned. When the length of time from the applicant ceasing to use methylamphetamine was pointed out to Dr Sheridan, she said that withdrawal could take 14 months or longer.[84] It appears, however, that Dr Sheridan had not taken a detailed history from the applicant of his drug use, including when he stopped taking methylamphetamine, which I would have thought would be relevant to forming an opinion as to certain behaviour being caused by withdrawal. I also note that Dr Sheridan conceded that the condition giving rise to the applicant’s disruptive behaviour could in fact be permanent.[85]
[83] Transcript/185.
[84] Transcript/167–8.
[85] Transcript/170.

In relation to the applicant’s shoulder injury and the potentially long wait for surgery in the United Kingdom, the Minister notes the applicant had left shoulder reconstruction and fusion surgery in or around September 2018[151] and it is not presently clear what outstanding surgery remains or to be done. The applicant will have access to all of the health and other benefits to which other United Kingdom residents have access and the United Kingdom benefits and entitlements are of an equivalent standard to those available in Australia.[152]
[151] Citing R2/267.
[152] Citing Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [202] FCA 831 at [87]-[88] and [98].
The Minster contends that there would be no language or cultural barriers to the applicant establishing himself, and notes that in his letter to the parole board the applicant advised that he planned to obtain farm work on release. The Minister submits that, while the applicant may have some initial difficulties in establishing himself, most impediments would be minimal and short lived.
I asked the applicant what impact his shoulder injury and he subsequent fusion of his left shoulder joint has had on his shoulder and his ability to engage in manual work. His evidence was:
APPLICANT: … I can’t put it behind me but I can do around the front here, like, stuff like that. But -..
TRIBUNAL: Are you left-handed or right-handed?
I also asked the applicant about his experience with operating farm machinery. His evidence was:
APPLICANT:   Yes, I do with tractors and that. While I was in prison I tried to make    myself more employable when I got out. I tried to do the forklift ticket,   chainsaw, working with heights and confined spaces, white card, and   my year 10 certificate but they wouldn’t let me do any of it because I   was on the deportation list. So when I get - if I do get back - let back   to my daughter’s the first thing I’ll be doing is sorting out some teeth   and doing my chainsaw ticket, forklift ticket and stuff like that to make   myself more employable.
TRIBUNAL:     And your fused shoulder wouldn’t be an impediment to any of those    activities, would it?
APPLICANT:   No, I can drive a forklift and stuff like that, use a chainsaw because    it’s all in front.
TRIBUNAL:     And generally they’re in front of you. You hope they’re in front of you                     anyway…
APPLICANT:   Yes, exactly, yes. And working in confined spaces and heights. And                     I’d do my white card so that I’m allowed onto the sites and stuff like   that. And I would like to do my year 10 certificate so I just get a bit   more knowledge and stuff like that.[153]
[153] Transcript/147.
While the applicant did not specifically raise his addiction and mental health conditions as being impediments, they are, in my view matters that would be relevant in considering what sort of impediments the applicant might have in establishing himself in the United Kingdom. Dr Sheridan’s report lists a number of physical and psychological conditions which have the potential, certainly if not treated, to be an impediment to the applicant obtaining and keeping employment and, therefore, in establishing himself in the United Kingdom. Whether or not the medical and social services available in the United Kingdom are similar to those in Australia, the applicant’s PTSD (or at least his manifestation of PTSD symptoms), his undiagnosed ADHD and his drug and alcohol addictions are all matters that I think are likely to adversely affect the ability of the applicant to establish a new life in the United Kingdom. I also accept that separation from his family, in particular his daughters and gravely ill mother, would have a very significant impact on the applicant emotionally and physically.
I find that that the applicant’s undiagnosed mental health conditions (likely to be exacerbated by separation from his family and children), his lack of family support available in the United Kingdom, his lack of employment history, the applicant’s lack of education and limited literacy, his largely untreated addiction and his physical conditions (being his shoulder injury and sciatica) would be impediments to the applicant establishing himself to the standard described in para 9.2 of Direction 90. This consideration should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Impact on victims (para 9.3)
Paragraph 9.3 of Direction 90 is as follows:
(1)Decision-makers must consider the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
The applicant’s SFIC referred to the applicant being aware of the impact that his offending has had on the victims and their families and to the applicant intending to “make reparations” to them. I am not sure what those reparations are or would be, however, the applicant’s submission is misconceived. This consideration requires consideration of the “impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims” not the impact of the applicant’s offending.[154]
[154] Orario and Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 4810 at [132]–136].
The Minister submitted that “there is no evidence that non-revocation would have any impact on the victims of the applicant’s offending”[155] and that therefore this consideration is neutral.
[155] Minister’s SFIC para 52.
As noted above, the applicant’s submission is misconceived. I also disagree with the Minister’s submission. There is evidence from one of the victims of the applicant’s criminal behaviour, namely Ms B, who is supportive of the applicant remaining in Australia. Ms B’s witness statement and other letters provided in support of the applicant’s application for the cancellation of his visa to be revoked, as well as her evidence at the hearing, make clear the impact on Ms B of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa.[156]
[156] See also CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 1842 at [11].
I have commented on this consideration in various decisions[157] and the potential for it to have broader application than simply the impact of the decision on victims. As I did in those cases, insofar as a consideration broader than the impact on victims is required, the possible impact of the applicant being permitted to stay (i.e. a decision to revoke the cancellation) has been dealt with under other relevant considerations.
[157] See Wade and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 202 at [123]–[124] and the cases cited therein; see also Orario at [132]–136].
The only evidence before me of the impact of a decision to revoke or not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa on a victim of the applicant’s offending is that of Ms B. Given her evidence on that point, as it was envisaged it could by Colvin J in CGX20, this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. Given that Ms B’s views and circumstances are also be taken into account under other considerations, only minor weight should be given to this consideration as a stand-alone consideration.
Links to the Australian Community (para 9.4)
Paragraph 9.4 of Direction 90 provides:
Reflecting the principles at paragraph 5.2, decision-makers must have regard to paragraphs 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 below.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (para 9.4.1)
Paragraph 9.4.1 of Direction 90 is as follows:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the noncitizen 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 only submission made by the applicant in his SFIC under this consideration was:
The applicant’s history and links to Australia are enormous. This has been expressed already throughout this submission and are in favour of the applicant.[158]
[158] Applicant’s SFIC para 87.
The applicant’s closing submissions were equally brief. Having referred to the fact that the applicant arrived as a child and has spent his life in Australia, the applicant submitted:
The applicant has a close relationship with his mother Christine Taylor and has lived most of his life near to her. Mrs Taylor has lung cancer and is terminally ill in palliative care. It will cause significant hardship to Mrs Taylor if the applicant is removed from Australia and as might be expected this will have an adverse effect upon her health.[159]
[159] Applicant’s closing submissions para 77.
The Minister’s closing submissions were that the evidence of the applicant’s mother was that her son Jason lived with her and cared for her and that the written statements provided by parties not called to give evidence should only be given limited weight.
The applicant arrived in Australia as a 14-month-old and has lived in Australia for over 48 years. He has never left Australia. As I noted above, the applicant’s contribution to the community has not been significant (see [137] above).
All of his connections are in Australia, he has none in the United Kingdom. The impact of a decision not to allow the applicant to stay will be significant on his immediate family members. The impact on the applicant’s two daughters has been discussed in the above consideration of the best interests of children. As set out in that consideration, the impact will be significant.
The impact on the applicant’s mother who is gravely ill, will also be very significant. In her witness statement,[160] Ms Taylor advised that she has terminal lung cancer and other chronic illnesses. She stated that she would never be able to visit the applicant if he were deported because of her health. Her evidence was that she has not even been able to travel from her home in the South West of Western Australia. Other members of the applicant’s family also spoke of the significant impact that the applicant being deported would have on his mother.
[160] A5.
The applicant’s adult daughter Keesha’s evidence at the hearing was that her father not being allowed to stay would “break” and “destroy” her.[161] I also take note of the many statements of support and letters provided by other members of the community who obviously wish the applicant to stay in Australia. While, as the Minister notes, they were not called to give evidence, I still accept that their sentiment is supportive of the applicant staying.
[161] Transcript/256.
In light of the impact on the applicant’s mother and his children, both minor and adult, and the fact that all of the applicant’s links are to Australia, I find that this consideration, links to the Australian community, weighs in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and that moderate weight should be given to it.
THE WEIGHING EXERCISE
Direction 90 guides the decision-maker on how to apply the primary and other considerations. Paragraph 7 of Direction 90 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account (see [22] above).
A number of cases have dealt with how the exercise of balancing the considerations is to be undertaken. While some of these cases were looking at that exercise under Direction 65 and Direction 79, the same considerations apply to the exercise required by Direction 90 which is materially in the same terms. I am guided by Colvin J’s judgment in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[162] and the Full Court judgment in Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ.[163]
[162] [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545.
[163] [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591.
Colvin J’s judgment in Suleiman was considered by Wigney J in FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.[164] At [21], Wigney J cited [23] of Colvin J’s judgment which was as follows:
The use by the Tribunal of the term ‘secondary’ indicates that the ‘other considerations’ are always of lesser importance. However, Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the ‘other considerations’ (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given ‘appropriate weight’. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains ‘generally’ they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are ‘normally’ given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both ‘primary’ and ‘other considerations’. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.
(Emphasis omitted.)
[164] [2021] FCA 775.
Wigney J then observed at [22]:
It is the last sentence of this paragraph of Suleiman which has given rise to the issue in this case. That issue will be discussed in more detail later. It suffices at this point to note that, with the greatest respect to Colvin J, this analysis of paragraph 8 of the relevant direction tends to overcomplicate or over intellectualise the issue. More significantly, it may lead decision-makers into error. Paragraph 8 of Direction no. 79 is expressed in simple terms. Relevantly, decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations that are relevant to the individual case and, when it comes to weighing up the relevant considerations, have regard to three relevant principles: first, both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, whether or not to revoke a cancellation of a visa; second, primary conditions should generally be given greater weight than other considerations; and third, one or more primary considerations may outweigh other considerations. It is difficult to see why any further elaboration of those simple principles or propositions is necessary or warranted.
(Emphasis omitted.)
The Tribunal in CZCV at [164] summarised the legal position as follows:
Thus, when read together, these passages from Suleiman and HSKJ are consistent with guidance to be given in the express wording of Direction no. 65, specifically, in paragraphs 8(3) and (4). The Tribunal must ensure, that in considering the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 65, that it must undertake a genuine weighing exercise during which it is not automatically assumed that primary considerations will always weigh more than other considerations (as the use of the word “secondary” tends to suggest). Although, as a general rule, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight, the Tribunal must not fetter itself against giving an other consideration greater weight than a primary consideration, if in the circumstances of the case it is correct and preferable to do so. ...
I adopt the approach directed by the above cases.
I find that the first primary consideration, the protection of the Australian community, weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
I find that the second primary consideration, family violence, while it must weigh against the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, only minor weight should be given to it.
I find that the third primary consideration, the best interests of minor children, weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The fourth primary consideration, the expectations of the Australian community, as it must, weighs against the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and, in my view, should be given moderate to heavy weight.
In relation to the “other considerations” identified in Direction 90, the consideration of extent of impediments if removed, should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The next “other consideration” relevant in the present case, namely, the impact on victims of a decision under s 501CA of the Act, weighs in favour a decision to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, however, only minor weight should be given to it.
The final relevant “other consideration”, links to the Australian community, weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and that moderate weight should be given to it.
Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the considerations against the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, and being mindful of para 7(2) of Direction 90 which states that Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations (see [22] above, I find that the considerations against revocation, particularly the protection of the Australian community, family violence and the expectations of the Australian community, outweigh those in favour of revocation. Accordingly, I find that there is not another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
DECISION
The decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 8 June 2022 not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 181 (one hundred and eighty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Boyle

...[SGD].....................................................................
Associate
Dated: 31 August 2022

Dates of hearing: 16–17 August 2022

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D McKenna

Advocate for the Applicant: Inclusive Migration Australia

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms D Jones-Bolla

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
ANNEXURE

Result date

Offence

Court

Result

Offence date

Offence type

7 December 2020

Aggravated burglary and commit

Bunbury District Court of Western Australia

Three years and seven months’ imprisonment

18 October 2019

Criminal

10 June 2019

Breach family violence restraining order or violence restraining order

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine

9 June 2019

Criminal

21 March 2019

Breach of police order

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$300 fine

18 February 2019

Criminal

6 October 2016

Breach of suspended sentence (order of 7 September 2016)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Six months’ imprisonment (cumulative) from 6 October 2016

3 May 2015

Criminal

6 October 2016

Breach of suspended sentence (order of 7 September 2016)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Three months’ imprisonment (cumulative) from 6 October 2016

3 May 2015

Criminal

6 October 2016

Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Three months’ imprisonment (concurrent) from 6 October 2016

22 June 2016

Criminal

6 October 2016

Steal motor vehicle

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Three months’ imprisonment (cumulative)

10 July 2016

Criminal

21 September 2016

Bicycle rider fail to wear protective helmet

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$100 fine (global)

22 June 2016

Traffic

21 September 2016

Ride bicycle without lights on the front

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$100 fine (global)

22 June 2016

Traffic

7 September 2016

Breach of suspended sentence (order of 25 February 2016)

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$50 fine; suspended imprisonment order to continue

3 May 2015

Criminal

7 September 2016

Breach of suspended sentence (order of 25 February 2016)

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$50 fine; suspended imprisonment order to continue

3 May 2015

Criminal

7 September 2016

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$300 fine

20 June 2016

Criminal

25 February 2016

Breach of community based order (order of 29 June 2015)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Suspended imprisonment order (six months and one day imprisonment) (cumulative); suspended for 12 months

3 May 2015

Criminal

25 February 2016

Breach of community based order (order of 29 June 2015)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Suspended imprisonment order (three months imprisonment) (cumulative); suspended for 12 months

3 May 2015

Criminal

25 February 2016

Person who breaches community release order or community order without reasonable excuse

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$200 fine (global)

-

Criminal

25 February 2016

Person who breaches community release order or community order without reasonable excuse

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$200 fine (global)

-

Criminal

29 June 2015

Aggravated burglary and commit offence in place

Bunbury Magistrates Court

Community based order of 12 months (concurrent) from 29 June 2015

3 May 2015

Criminal

29 June 2015

Criminal damage or destruction of property

Bunbury Magistrates Court

Community based order of 12 months (concurrent) from 29 June 2015

3 May 2015

Criminal

18 May 2015

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Donnybrook Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine

9 April 2015

Criminal

13 May 2015

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine

9 April 2015

Criminal

30 March 2015

Burglary and commit offence in place

Bunbury Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine

12 February 2015

Criminal

26 February 2015

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$250 fine

16 January 2015

Criminal

20 November 2014

Breach of bail undertaking

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$200 fine

15 September 2014

Criminal

20 November 2014

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$200 fine (global)

4 July 2014

Criminal

20 November 2014

Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$500 fine

4 July 2014

Criminal

20 November 2014

Stealing

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$300 fine

28 June 2014

Criminal

20 November 2014

Used a prohibited drug (amphetamine)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$200 fine (global)

3 July 2014

Criminal

16 October 2014

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$600 fine

11 September 2014

Criminal

17 April 2014

Disorderly behaviour in public

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$600 fine

14 February 2014

Criminal

30 January 2014

Possess a prohibited plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$300 fine

11 December 2013

Criminal

24 October 2013

Possess a prohibited plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine (global)

25 September 2013

Criminal

24 October 2013

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine (global)

25 September 2013

Criminal

24 October 2013

Used a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine (global)

25 September 2013

Criminal

4 April 2013

No authority to drive – never held

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$100 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified for three months (concurrent)

10 January 2013

Traffic

28 June 2012

Disorderly behaviour in public

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Adult conditional release order for 18 months (from 28 June 2012); $400 undertaking

23 April 2012

Criminal

28 June 2012

Obstructing public officers

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Adult conditional release order for 18 months (from 28 June 2012); $3,000 undertaking; $100 fine

23 April 2012

Criminal

29 March 2012

Person who breaches conditional release order or community order without reasonable excuse

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$100 fine

24 March 2011

Criminal

17 June 2011

Disorderly behaviour in a police station

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$500 fine (global)

15 June 2011

Criminal

17 June 2011

Remain on licensed premises

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$500 fine (global)

15 June 2011

Criminal

24 March 2011

Breach of community based order (order of 21 October 2010)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

No further order: sustain previous order

16 October 2009

Criminal

24 March 2011

Breach of community based order (order of 21 October 2010)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

No further order: sustain previous order

16 October 2009

Criminal

24 March 2011

Fail to obey order give by an officer

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 24 March 2011

9 September 2010

Criminal

21 October 2010

Breach of community based order

Manjimup Magistrates Court

No further order: sustain previous order

-

Criminal

21 October 2010

Breach of community based order

Manjimup Magistrates Court

No further order: sustain previous order

-

Criminal

21 October 2010

Person who breaches conditional release order or community based order without reasonable excuse

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$100 (global)

3 June 2010

Criminal

21 October 2010

Person who breaches conditional release order or community based order without reasonable excuse

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$100 (global)

3 June 2010

Criminal

3 June 2010

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 3 June 2010

16 October 2009

Criminal

3 June 2010

Possess a smoking utensil used for smoking prohibited drug

Manjimup Magistrates Court

Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 3 June 2010

16 October 2009

Criminal

18 February 2010

Disorderly behaviour in public

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$700 fine (global)

6 February 2010

Criminal

18 February 2010

Fail to obey order given by an officer

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$700 fine (global)

6 February 2010

Criminal

26 November 2009

Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine (global)

16 October 2009

Criminal

26 November 2009

Possess a prohibited plant

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$,1000 fine (global)

16 October 2009

Criminal

26 November 2009

Possess a smoking utensil

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$1,000 fine (global)

16 October 2009

Criminal

26 November 2009

No authority to drive – never held

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$300 fine

20 November 2009

Traffic

27 April 2006

Disorderly behaviour in public place

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$150 fine

21 April 2006

Criminal

19 October 2005

No motor driver’s licence – under suspension

Jurien Magistrates Court

$400 fine; disqualified from holding/ obtaining a motor driver’s licence for nine months (cumulative)

24 September 2005

Traffic

19 October 2005

Driving under the influence (method is breath)

Jurien Magistrates Court

$1,500 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified and cancelled (prescribed – two years)

24 September 2005

Traffic

28 June 2005

Excess 0.08% blood alcohol content (second offence, method is breath)

Pemberton Magistrates Court

$500 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for four months

25 June 2005

Traffic

28 June 2005

No motor driver’s licence

Pemberton Magistrates Court

$200 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (mandatory; concurrent)

25 June 2005

Traffic

24 July 2003

Dangerous driving

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$500 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified for six months (concurrent)

19 August 2001

Traffic

24 July 2003

No driver’s licence

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$100 fine

19 August 2001

Traffic

10 August 2000

Assault to prevent arrest

Manjimup Magistrates Court

$2,000 fine

-

Criminal

20 July 2000

No motor driver’s licence

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

$300 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months

22 June 2000

Traffic

20 July 2000

Unlicensed vehicle

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine

22 June 2000

Traffic

5 March 1996

Driving under the influence (method is breath)

Midland Court of Petty Sessions

$500 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for six months

8 February 1996

Traffic

5 March 1996

No motor driver’s licence

Midland Court of Petty Sessions

$300 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)

8 February 1996

Traffic

5 March 1996

False number plate (not issued for that vehicle)

Midland Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)

8 February 1996

Traffic

16 June 1994

Possess a quantity of cannabis with intent to sell/supply

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

$500 fine

-

Criminal

9 March 1994

No motor driver’s licence

Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions

$150 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months

9 January 1994

Traffic

9 March 1994

Failing to supply particulars after accident

Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions

$200 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)

9 January 1994

Traffic

9 March 1994

Fail to give way to turning vehicle at terminating road

Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions

$200 fine

4 January 1994

Traffic

22 April 1993

Unlicensed vehicle (permit use of)

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine

18 February 1993

Traffic

11 March 1993

Permit use of unlicensed vehicle

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine

-

Criminal

4 February 1993

Burglary

Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions

18 months’ probation; 150 hours community service order

-

Criminal

9 December 1992

Possess a quantity of cannabis

Perth Court of Petty Sessions

$150 fine

-

Criminal

26 March 1992

No motor driver’s licence

Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (mandatory)

13 March 1992

Traffic

26 March 1992

Fail to stop when called upon

Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions

$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)

13 March 1992

Traffic

Dates of hearing:	16–17 August 2022
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D McKenna
Advocate for the Applicant:	Inclusive Migration Australia
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms D Jones-Bolla
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Result date	Offence	Court	Result	Offence date	Offence type
7 December 2020	Aggravated burglary and commit	Bunbury District Court of Western Australia	Three years and seven months’ imprisonment	18 October 2019	Criminal
10 June 2019	Breach family violence restraining order or violence restraining order	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine	9 June 2019	Criminal
21 March 2019	Breach of police order	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$300 fine	18 February 2019	Criminal
6 October 2016	Breach of suspended sentence (order of 7 September 2016)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Six months’ imprisonment (cumulative) from 6 October 2016	3 May 2015	Criminal
6 October 2016	Breach of suspended sentence (order of 7 September 2016)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Three months’ imprisonment (cumulative) from 6 October 2016	3 May 2015	Criminal
6 October 2016	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Three months’ imprisonment (concurrent) from 6 October 2016	22 June 2016	Criminal
6 October 2016	Steal motor vehicle	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Three months’ imprisonment (cumulative)	10 July 2016	Criminal
21 September 2016	Bicycle rider fail to wear protective helmet	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$100 fine (global)	22 June 2016	Traffic
21 September 2016	Ride bicycle without lights on the front	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$100 fine (global)	22 June 2016	Traffic
7 September 2016	Breach of suspended sentence (order of 25 February 2016)	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$50 fine; suspended imprisonment order to continue	3 May 2015	Criminal
7 September 2016	Breach of suspended sentence (order of 25 February 2016)	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$50 fine; suspended imprisonment order to continue	3 May 2015	Criminal
7 September 2016	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$300 fine	20 June 2016	Criminal
25 February 2016	Breach of community based order (order of 29 June 2015)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Suspended imprisonment order (six months and one day imprisonment) (cumulative); suspended for 12 months	3 May 2015	Criminal
25 February 2016	Breach of community based order (order of 29 June 2015)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Suspended imprisonment order (three months imprisonment) (cumulative); suspended for 12 months	3 May 2015	Criminal
25 February 2016	Person who breaches community release order or community order without reasonable excuse	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$200 fine (global)	-	Criminal
25 February 2016	Person who breaches community release order or community order without reasonable excuse	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$200 fine (global)	-	Criminal
29 June 2015	Aggravated burglary and commit offence in place	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Community based order of 12 months (concurrent) from 29 June 2015	3 May 2015	Criminal
29 June 2015	Criminal damage or destruction of property	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Community based order of 12 months (concurrent) from 29 June 2015	3 May 2015	Criminal
18 May 2015	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Donnybrook Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine	9 April 2015	Criminal
13 May 2015	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine	9 April 2015	Criminal
30 March 2015	Burglary and commit offence in place	Bunbury Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine	12 February 2015	Criminal
26 February 2015	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$250 fine	16 January 2015	Criminal
20 November 2014	Breach of bail undertaking	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$200 fine	15 September 2014	Criminal
20 November 2014	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$200 fine (global)	4 July 2014	Criminal
20 November 2014	Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$500 fine	4 July 2014	Criminal
20 November 2014	Stealing	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$300 fine	28 June 2014	Criminal
20 November 2014	Used a prohibited drug (amphetamine)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$200 fine (global)	3 July 2014	Criminal
16 October 2014	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$600 fine	11 September 2014	Criminal
17 April 2014	Disorderly behaviour in public	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$600 fine	14 February 2014	Criminal
30 January 2014	Possess a prohibited plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$300 fine	11 December 2013	Criminal
24 October 2013	Possess a prohibited plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine (global)	25 September 2013	Criminal
24 October 2013	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine (global)	25 September 2013	Criminal
24 October 2013	Used a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine (global)	25 September 2013	Criminal
4 April 2013	No authority to drive – never held	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$100 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified for three months (concurrent)	10 January 2013	Traffic
28 June 2012	Disorderly behaviour in public	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Adult conditional release order for 18 months (from 28 June 2012); $400 undertaking	23 April 2012	Criminal
28 June 2012	Obstructing public officers	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Adult conditional release order for 18 months (from 28 June 2012); $3,000 undertaking; $100 fine	23 April 2012	Criminal
29 March 2012	Person who breaches conditional release order or community order without reasonable excuse	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$100 fine	24 March 2011	Criminal
17 June 2011	Disorderly behaviour in a police station	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$500 fine (global)	15 June 2011	Criminal
17 June 2011	Remain on licensed premises	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$500 fine (global)	15 June 2011	Criminal
24 March 2011	Breach of community based order (order of 21 October 2010)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	No further order: sustain previous order	16 October 2009	Criminal
24 March 2011	Breach of community based order (order of 21 October 2010)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	No further order: sustain previous order	16 October 2009	Criminal
24 March 2011	Fail to obey order give by an officer	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 24 March 2011	9 September 2010	Criminal
21 October 2010	Breach of community based order	Manjimup Magistrates Court	No further order: sustain previous order	-	Criminal
21 October 2010	Breach of community based order	Manjimup Magistrates Court	No further order: sustain previous order	-	Criminal
21 October 2010	Person who breaches conditional release order or community based order without reasonable excuse	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$100 (global)	3 June 2010	Criminal
21 October 2010	Person who breaches conditional release order or community based order without reasonable excuse	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$100 (global)	3 June 2010	Criminal
3 June 2010	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 3 June 2010	16 October 2009	Criminal
3 June 2010	Possess a smoking utensil used for smoking prohibited drug	Manjimup Magistrates Court	Community based order for six months (concurrent) from 3 June 2010	16 October 2009	Criminal
18 February 2010	Disorderly behaviour in public	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$700 fine (global)	6 February 2010	Criminal
18 February 2010	Fail to obey order given by an officer	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$700 fine (global)	6 February 2010	Criminal
26 November 2009	Possess a prohibited drug (cannabis)	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine (global)	16 October 2009	Criminal
26 November 2009	Possess a prohibited plant	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$,1000 fine (global)	16 October 2009	Criminal
26 November 2009	Possess a smoking utensil	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$1,000 fine (global)	16 October 2009	Criminal
26 November 2009	No authority to drive – never held	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$300 fine	20 November 2009	Traffic
27 April 2006	Disorderly behaviour in public place	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$150 fine	21 April 2006	Criminal
19 October 2005	No motor driver’s licence – under suspension	Jurien Magistrates Court	$400 fine; disqualified from holding/ obtaining a motor driver’s licence for nine months (cumulative)	24 September 2005	Traffic
19 October 2005	Driving under the influence (method is breath)	Jurien Magistrates Court	$1,500 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified and cancelled (prescribed – two years)	24 September 2005	Traffic
28 June 2005	Excess 0.08% blood alcohol content (second offence, method is breath)	Pemberton Magistrates Court	$500 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for four months	25 June 2005	Traffic
28 June 2005	No motor driver’s licence	Pemberton Magistrates Court	$200 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (mandatory; concurrent)	25 June 2005	Traffic
24 July 2003	Dangerous driving	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$500 fine; motor driver’s licence disqualified for six months (concurrent)	19 August 2001	Traffic
24 July 2003	No driver’s licence	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$100 fine	19 August 2001	Traffic
10 August 2000	Assault to prevent arrest	Manjimup Magistrates Court	$2,000 fine	-	Criminal
20 July 2000	No motor driver’s licence	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	$300 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months	22 June 2000	Traffic
20 July 2000	Unlicensed vehicle	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine	22 June 2000	Traffic
5 March 1996	Driving under the influence (method is breath)	Midland Court of Petty Sessions	$500 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for six months	8 February 1996	Traffic
5 March 1996	No motor driver’s licence	Midland Court of Petty Sessions	$300 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)	8 February 1996	Traffic
5 March 1996	False number plate (not issued for that vehicle)	Midland Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)	8 February 1996	Traffic
16 June 1994	Possess a quantity of cannabis with intent to sell/supply	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	$500 fine	-	Criminal
9 March 1994	No motor driver’s licence	Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions	$150 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months	9 January 1994	Traffic
9 March 1994	Failing to supply particulars after accident	Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions	$200 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)	9 January 1994	Traffic
9 March 1994	Fail to give way to turning vehicle at terminating road	Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions	$200 fine	4 January 1994	Traffic
22 April 1993	Unlicensed vehicle (permit use of)	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine	18 February 1993	Traffic
11 March 1993	Permit use of unlicensed vehicle	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine	-	Criminal
4 February 1993	Burglary	Manjimup Court of Petty Sessions	18 months’ probation; 150 hours community service order	-	Criminal
9 December 1992	Possess a quantity of cannabis	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	$150 fine	-	Criminal
26 March 1992	No motor driver’s licence	Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (mandatory)	13 March 1992	Traffic
26 March 1992	Fail to stop when called upon	Pemberton Court of Petty Sessions	$100 fine; disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for three months (concurrent; mandatory)	13 March 1992	Traffic