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

[2024] AATA 3601

Tonga and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 3601 (10 October 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2022/4046

Re:Gavin Tonga

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Rebecca Bellamy

Date:10 October 2024

Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision made by the Respondent's delegate dated 18 May 2022 and instead revokes the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa

................[SGD]................
Senior Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) – where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 – prior good character – less serious offending – relatively low risk of harm – decision under review set-aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES

Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R Bellamy

10 October 2024

1. The Applicant is a 45-year-old citizen of New Zealand who came to Australia on a Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa (“visa”) in 2000 when he was 21 years old. He lived a law-abiding, productive life in Australia until he suffered a series of devastating events that started in 2015. He spent the next five years using drugs and committing drug-related crimes. In 2021, his visa was cancelled due to his criminal offending, and he has asked the Tribunal to revoke that cancellation.

2. The cancellation of his visa was mandatory. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) relevantly provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

   ·the Minister 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); and

   ·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.

3. Under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act relevantly provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”.

4. On 14 May 2021, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months, along with other shorter terms. In June 2021, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) cancelled his visa because he did not pass the character test and he was serving a full-time custodial sentence. The Minister is required to notify a non-citizen whose visa has been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. The notice must include an invitation to make representations to the Minister about revocation of that decision.[1]

   [1] 501CA(3)(b).

5. A mandatory visa cancellation can be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act which provides:

   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.

6. The Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation. That decision was reviewable by the Tribunal pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act. The Applicant sought review and a differently constituted Tribunal affirmed the decision. The Federal Court found that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error and remitted it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

7. I am satisfied that the Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act and that he does not pass the character test. Thus, the sole issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. If there is, I should set aside the original decision.[2]

   [2] Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151.

8. The hearing of this application took place on 20, 21 and 26 August 2024. The Applicant gave evidence in person, as did his friend, Ms Kylie White. The Applicant’s brother, Cade, Tonga gave evidence via telephone. The Tribunal also received the documentary evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”. The evidence included the exhibits and written submissions from the previous Tribunal hearing and the transcript of that hearing.   

9. The Tribunal is grateful to the Respondent’s lawyer for her skilful work in this matter which greatly assisted the Tribunal. In particular, her logical, detailed cross examination of the Applicant gave him opportunities to explain apparently anomalous evidence and it brought some important matters relating to his credibility and insight into focus. I do not wish to overlook the efforts of the Applicant’s lawyer, who ably represented him and also assisted the Tribunal.

   Determination of Whether There is Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked

10. In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) applies.

11. For the purposes of deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several guiding principles. Those principles, as far as they relate to this matter, may be summarised as follows:

    ·Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to remain in Australia. Being able to 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.

    ·The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

    ·Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

    ·The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

    ·With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    ·Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non­citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

12. Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:

    Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.

13. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account. They are:

    (1)the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    (2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

    (3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

    (4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and

    (5)expectations of the Australian community.

14. Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. They are:

    a)legal consequences of the decision;

    b)extent of impediments if removed; and

    c)impact on Australian business interests

15. Primary consideration 1 is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

16. It was agreed between the parties that Primary Consideration 2 does not apply in this case, and that Other Consideration (a) is neutral.

    BACKGROUND

17. The Respondent advised that only convictions against the Applicant that were recorded are relied upon in this matter. There were quite a few unrecorded convictions for relatively minor matters in 2015 and 2016. This coincides with the disintegration of the Applicant’s life as he knew it. In fairness to him, I am taking into account that his descent into drugs and crime started at this time. Otherwise, I have no regard to any of the unrecorded convictions or the conduct from which they arose.

18. The Applicant moved to Australia in 2001 at the age of 21. He had a partner and son at that time. He worked as a crane operator, rigger and scaffolder. His parents and most of his siblings were also living in Australia. 

19. In 2002, he was detected driving under the influence of liquor (.170 BAC). He was caught speeding between 13 km/h to 20 km/h over the speed limit twice in 2003, once in 2004 and once in 2007. He was detected speeding between 20 km/h to 30 km/h over the speed limit once in 2004. He was caught speeding by less than 13 km/h in 2015 and then in 2016. He was detected either driving unlicensed or driving disqualified twice in 2016, six times in 2017, once in 2019, four times in 2020, and once in 2021.

20. The Applicant spent some years working in Western Australia and Queensland as a FIFO worker in the mining and construction industries. He returned permanently to Brisbane in 2013 or 2014, working in a job that did not require him to be away so much. He developed bilateral tendonitis, which caused him to lose complete use of both his hands. By August 2015, he was unable to continue working and was no longer employable in that kind of work.

21. He recalls that this is when he started to struggle. He received Workcover payments until February 2016. Around that time, his 20-year relationship broke down. He and his partner were arguing about “finances, and my injury, and my ability to do stuff”.[3] He had started using methamphetamine. He tried to save the relationship, but his mother-in-law intervened. She ordered him out of the house. His parents-in-law had bought the house, by paying the deposit, and the Applicant had paid the mortgage for many years, but when he was made to leave, he left with nothing. He did not know how to deal with the break-up. In the words of his brother, Cade, the Applicant “sort of went off the rails”.[4] The Applicant said the break-up was very traumatic and he became a “lost person”.[5] He began to experience frequent panic attacks which left him paralysed and at times caused him to hyperventilate.

    [3] Transcript, page 52 lines 43 to 44.

    [4] Transcript, page 154, lines 45 to 46.

    [5] Exhibit RB, page 65.

22. The Applicant escalated his use of methamphetamine to “numb the pain”.[6] There was a period when he slept outside the house, in his car, because he had nowhere to go, and he was too ashamed to tell his family what was happening. His mother-in-law told the police that he had made a threat, and a Domestic Violence Order (“DVO”) was made against him to protect his ex-partner. She also told the police that he was dealing ice, which was untrue. He said, about his mother-in-law’s allegations, “There was lots of that sort of stuff” and “she wanted me away from the house, and I didn’t – you know, I was lost”.[7] He felt like the police targeted him after that. The Applicant never breached the DVO, which expired in March 2018. It was difficult for the Applicant to spend time with his son. He took to associating with anti-social people. He isolated himself from people who could have helped him because he was embarrassed and ashamed.

    [6] Transcript, page 113, lines 41 to 42.

    [7] Transcript, page 115, lines 6 to 7; page 119, lines 1 to 4.

23. In October 2015, the Applicant failed to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. In April 2016, he did that again. There followed a six-year period of frequent and relatively minor offending along with a small number of more serious offences. 

24. In 2016, the Applicant failed to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking a total of four times. In September 2016, he was given a seven-day suspended gaol sentence for the 2015 and 2016 offences. 

25. The Applicant was remanded in custody from 11 October to 8 December 2016 in relation to offences for which convictions were not recorded. I mention these offences only to explain the time spent in custody. I do not take them into account otherwise.  

26. On 4 July 2017, a vehicle was broken into and stolen. It is not alleged that the Applicant did that. However, it was found two months later, and his fingerprints were found on it. He admitted to police that he may have driven it at some point and told a fanciful story that he was often contacted by the victims of vehicle theft who asked him to recover their vehicle for them and that this is likely the reason he would have driven the vehicle.

27. On 14 July 2017, the Applicant was again convicted of fail to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and, on top of that, the seven-day sentence of imprisonment was invoked. He was given a parole release date of 4 August 2017.

28. A Corrective Services Mental Health Risk Note, dated 12 September 2017, indicates that in a discussion with a Corrective Services Officer (“CSO”), the Applicant said he thought his service in the New Zealand Military, in which he served in the former Yugoslavia and in “Timor”, may have impacted his mental health, and caused “some PTSD”. The CSO thought he presented with some indicators of PTSD. They discussed the need to identify stressors and triggers, and strategies to increase the Applicant’s ability to cope without engaging in methamphetamine use. The Applicant was encouraged to seek intervention to help him to address previous trauma, and to seek pro-social supports by engaging with a local Men's Shed or similar. He seemed open to this and became “quite emotional”. However, it does not appear that he acted on these suggestions. [8]

    [8] Exhibit RB, pages 464 to 465.

29. In October 2017, the Applicant failed to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking.

30. On 30 November 2017, the Applicant was one of three people found asleep in a stolen car. The police found stolen goods, methamphetamine and utensils inside a bag belonging to him in the car. He identified the bag as his but did not cooperate further. He gave the police the name of his brother and subsequently signed a bail undertaking in that name. He was charged, and later convicted, of serious assault police officer, however the particulars of the charge are merely that the Applicant obstructed a police officer, which appears to refer to his refusal to co-operate. 

31. Between 21 and 25 December 2017, the Applicant committed: possessing dangerous drugs; unlawful possession of restricted drugs; breach of bail condition; contravene direction or requirement; and receiving tainted property. He was found in a residence where a stolen BMW was parked outside. He had the keys. There was a stolen watch in the car and the car had false plates. He gave his brother’s name when questioned by police. He claimed the watch had been given to him by a friend. He was not convicted of having stolen any of these items.

32. On 26 December 2017, the Applicant was dealt with for a breach of bail and sentenced to imprisonment for three months, with a parole release date of 25 January 2018.

33. On 31 December 2017, the Applicant was involved in a fight with another prisoner.

34. On 8 March 2018, the Applicant committed assault or obstruct police officer in public place while adversely affected by intoxicating substance. According to the police facts, he had attended a police station. Seeing that he was wanted for questioning in relation to some other matters, the police asked him to come inside the station proper to answer some questions. He refused. He was told he was under arrest and was directed a number of times to come with the police. He continued to refuse. He tried to run, but the doors had been electronically locked. He continued to refuse to go into the station. He threatened an officer that, “If you come near me I’ll hurt you”. He was then subdued by the use of a taser. He was affected by methamphetamine at the time. There is no evidence that the Applicant had a weapon, struck out or shaped up, or that he moved toward any police officer.[9]

    [9]  Exhibit RB, page 347.

35. According to the Applicant, he was in the foyer to sign in for bail, and a Senior Sergeant came out and said, “Come with me. You’re under arrest”. He denied having tried to run away, but said he tried to put space between him and the officer while asking why he was under arrest. He denied having made the threat. He said that, reflecting on it, he should have just gone with the officer.[10]

    [10] Transcript, page 70, lines 29 to 43.

36. The next day, he was caught in possession of dangerous drugs. Later in March 2018, he was found in possession of tainted property. He breached bail conditions twice in April 2018, and in May 2018 he failed to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. He was also intercepted in the passenger seat of a stolen vehicle. The police facts indicate that he pushed past a police officer and ran away. He was subsequently convicted of assault or obstruct police officer. However, according to the Applicant, he did not mean to push past as there was enough space to run without doing that.[11] When the police caught up with him, he gave his brother’s name. In the hearing, he said he would often use the names of two of his brothers or make up names.[12]

    [11] Transcript, page 73, lines 13 to 15.

    [12] Transcript, page 72, lines 25 to 31.

37. In June 2018, the Applicant breached his bail. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four months for failure to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking, with a parole release date of 8 July 2018. A prison incident report indicates that on 5 December 2018, the Applicant was found in possession of an item that was orange and rectangle in appearance. The Applicant confirmed in the hearing that Suboxone comes in orange rectangular tabs.

38. In 2019, the Applicant breached bail three times. In November 2019, he was in a stolen car that made off without paying for $20 worth of petrol. The police facts indicate that CCTV footage showed him getting out of the driver’s side. When the police caught up with him later, he denied that he had been driving. In the Tribunal hearing, he said he was trying to buy the car and did not realise was stolen. He denied that he was driving, claiming he was a passenger and the driver just disappeared when the police showed up.  He said he did not realise the petrol had not been paid for. He claimed the police never gave him a chance to explain himself.[13] The Applicant was placed in custody that day.

    [13] Transcript, page 54 line 38 to page 55 line 29.

1. On 30 January 2020, the Applicant was dealt with for most of the offences he committed between 2017 and 2019 that had not already been dealt with. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three months, with immediate parole, and 40 hours of community service. For many of the offences, he received no further punishment. He subsequently breached the Community Service Order by committing more offences.

2. A CSO’s note of an interview with the Applicant the following day indicates that he admitted to high levels of ice and Subutex[14] use in custody, describing it a coping mechanism for his anxiety. It was not prescribed to him. He also admitted to using those substances after his release from custody.

   [14] Subutex is a prescription substitute for opioids, used to treat heroin addiction.

3. In 2019 the Applicant met Natasha and they commenced a relationship. It was around the time he met Natasha that the Applicant had decided he needed to change his life. He said he managed to abstain from drug use for short periods. However, the evidence shows that he continued to offend.  

4. A Corrective Services note dated 18 February 2020 indicates that the Applicant admitted he was using Subutex daily and said he wanted to stop it. He reported having used ice four to five times since his release from custody.

5. A record dated 12 March 2020 indicates that he was not honest about his drug use in relation to the incident when he was tasered and he said the police were “out to get him”.

6. On 25 March 2020, he told Corrective Services that he had gone “cold turkey” and stopped using Subutex but indicated he could relapse in future. He said he was avoiding negative associates and mainly staying at home. However, between April and December 2020, the Applicant committed:

   ·Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking (x 5);

   ·Breach of bail condition (x 3);

   ·Receiving tainted property;

   ·Possess tainted property (x 4);

   ·Possess utensils or pipes etc for use (x 2);

   ·Possessing dangerous drugs;

   ·Possess property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence;

   ·Contravention of domestic violence order; and

   ·Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels – use.

7. Specifically, on 26 April 2020, he was found in possession of a passport, two Queensland drivers licences, four bank/credit cards, personal identification and other loyalty cards in the names of other people, and on 7 July 2020, he was found with more personal identification cards in other people’s names. He told the Tribunal he lived with Natasha and another lady at the time, and he had been trying to limit the traffic though the house, but people would come and try to sell him things and try to barter for drugs, and the items must have been left there by others.[15]

   [15] Transcript, page 62, lines 22 to 25.

8. On 8 September 2020, the Applicant was intercepted by police riding a stolen motorcycle, without a license, carrying a backpack containing around $10,000 worth of Peruvian currency. The Applicant admitted to the Tribunal that he bought for $40, knowing it was worth more and there was something untoward about it.  

9. On 18 November 2020, the Applicant received a traffic infringement for driver involved in crash fail to fulfil duties, for which he was fined $266.

10. The Applicant and Natasha had lived together for around 12 months from mid-2019 to August 2020 when a DVO was made that effectively required the Applicant to move out. The Applicant said the DVO was made after Natasha had not wanted to go out with her friend, and the friend thought the Applicant was keeping her from going out. Natasha wrote a letter to the Tribunal in which she said that her friend was “out of line” and aggressive towards the Applicant, and that the Applicant walked away. She had opposed the DVO.  According to the Applicant, after he moved out, they were speaking regularly, and Natasha visited him at his parents’ house quite a lot. According to Natasha, after many attempts to have the DVO removed, she got it varied in November 2021 to allow contact between her and the Applicant.[16] In the meantime, in November 2020, the police found the Applicant in her home, which was at her request, and charged him with contravening the DVO. He was later convicted of that offence and not further punished.      

    [16] Exhibit RB, page 71.

11. In January 2021, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three months plus another two months for the failures to appear in accordance with bail undertaking, with a parole release date of 12 April 2021.

12. On 11 April 2021, white powder was found in his shared cell. He claims it was not his and he did not know what it was. Given his admission to illicitly using Subutex in prison (which comes in tabs), I think it is unlikely that he would lie about possessing or using a different type of drug. I accept that he had nothing to do with the white powder. On 16 April 2021, he was among a group of prisoners who were involved in a physical altercation, however the incident report does not allege that he engaged in any physical violence.

13. In May 2021, the Applicant was not further punished for breaching the Community Service Order and numerous other offences. However, was sentenced to the following concurrent sentences of imprisonment:

    ·three months for breaching bail;

    ·six months for unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels – use (Nov 2019);

    ·three months for fraud – dishonestly make off without paying (Nov 19); and

    ·four months for receiving tainted property and possess tainted property (x 2). 

14. He was also sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and fourteen months’ imprisonment, respectively for two instances of driving under disqualification.

15. In July 2021, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three months (to be served concurrently with the other sentences) for unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels – use and possess tainted property.

16. On 2 June 2021, the Applicant was attacked by two prisoners. He was placed in a headlock and punched and kicked many times. He told the Tribunal that it was retribution for his refusal to join a prison gang.

17. In November 2021, the Applicant was transferred to immigration detention. He quickly started attending SMART Recovery sessions. He attends once or twice per week.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

18. Paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. I should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. The Direction provides that “serious conduct” includes behaviour or conduct that does not constitute a criminal offence.

19. In determining the weight applicable to this Primary Consideration, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires me to give consideration to:

    (a)The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date; and

    (b)The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

    The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date

20. When assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, I must have regard to the following relevant matters:

    (a)…

    (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)…;

    (ii)crimes committed against…government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;

    (iii)…;

    (iv)…;

    (c)…the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

    (d)…;

    (e)the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

    (f)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;

    (g)…;

    (h)….

    (i)…

21. The Applicant’s offending conduct broadly consists of:

    ·Dealing with stolen property and using stolen vehicles – sometimes with false registration plates;

    ·Possession of drugs and utensils

    ·Driving without a license and driving while disqualified from having a license;

    ·Deliberately failing to co-operate with police, including by providing false information;

    ·Failing to report as required by his bail conditions;

    ·Making off without paying for petrol; and

    ·Breaching community based orders by committing more offences.

22. None of these are violent offences. According to the police records, the Applicant threatened violence once. That threat was allegedly made to a police officer in the performance of her duty. However, it is significant that it was a rather meek, hollow threat, made as he backed away while locked inside a police station where he was obviously at a disadvantage if he tried anything. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant was uncooperative, and therefore obstructed police, but I am not satisfied that he committed an offence against a police officer. Reasonable minds may differ about what constitutes an offence against a public official in the performance of their duty for the purpose of 8.1.1(1)(b)ii of the Direction. I am not satisfied that refusal to obey a direction, accompanied by an obviously hollow threat, in these specific circumstances, fits that description.     

23. There is no evidence that the Applicant supplied drugs to anyone, only that he used drugs himself.

24. The contravention of a DVO is very minor, given that it should not have been made in the first place and the Applicant was in Natasha’s company with her consent. It appears the court thought it was not serious, as the Applicant was not punished for it.    

25. Apart from the incident involving petrol, the Applicant has never been convicted of stealing, and there is no evidence that he ever attempted to use or sell any of the stolen identity cards, bank/credit cards or other stolen items that were found in his possession. Nor is there evidence that he procured others to steal those things. He was not convicted of stealing vehicles or of procuring false plates, but he used stolen vehicles with false plates. While he was using those vehicles, they were not available to the rightful owners to use. The sentences of imprisonment he received for some of this offending indicated that the court regarded it seriously.   

26. The system of licensing seeks to ensure that only people who meet certain standards are operating vehicles on the roads, in the interests of road safety. The Applicant persistently undermined that system by driving without a license. He also drove under the influence of alcohol once, and was caught speeding a few times, and that conduct tend to increase the risk of collisions. However, there is no evidence that he ever did cause a collision. He was convicted of driver involved in crash fail to fulfil duties, but there is no evidence that he caused the crash or left an injured person without help. The small fine suggests it was a minor infringement. The Applicant was eventually sentenced to substantial periods of imprisonment for the most recent driving offences. Prison is a sentence of last resort in the hierarchy of available sentencing options. These sentences clearly reflected the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s persistent offending in this regard. The learned sentencing Magistrate made that clear in his sentencing remarks.

27. The Applicant also received sentences of imprisonment for failing to comply with bail undertakings. Again, these offences did not harm anyone, but the cumulative effect of so many breaches warranted condign punishment.   

28. The Applicant’s offending in 2016 to 2021 was certainly frequent, although I do not detect a trend of increasing seriousness. His repeated offending made him a nuisance to law enforcement and to people in the community who did not have access to their own vehicles, because the Applicant and his associates were using them.        

29. The Applicant’s offending, as a whole, is towards the lower end of seriousness even though there is a lot of it.

    The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct

30. Here I 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.

31. I must have regard to the following relevant factors on a cumulative basis:

    (a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

    (b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non- citizen re-offending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.

32. For 15 years, the Applicant lived a law-abiding, productive life in Australia. I accept that this is the lifestyle he would normally choose. When asked what the important things in his life were before he lost his job, he said, “My family. Just going to work and doing what I was doing for my family”.[17] In the space of a year, the Applicant lost his job, his ability to do the work he knew how to do, his long-term relationship, his home that he had financially contributed to, and daily interaction with his son.  That is, he lost the things that were most important.   

    [17] Transcript, page 29, lines 22 to 25.

33. The Applicant attributed his offending to the relationship breakdown, and loss of employment in the context of no mental health support. He said “I just wasn’t myself.  I’m definitely ashamed and embarrassed.  I was going through something I didn’t know how to deal with.”[18] The obvious link between his inability to cope and the offending is methamphetamine.

    [18] Transcript, page 120, lines 7 to 10.

34. The Applicant struggled with that drug for five years, and he developed a dependency on Subutex in prison. While it does not appear that he has used methamphetamine since he was most recently incarcerated, making his period of abstinence more than three years, he still has issues with Subutex.   

35. The Applicant needs to address his drug dependency and the mental health issues that make him vulnerable to drug dependency. He said:

    “the only real thing of value I can do in detention is work on myself. I have been attending medical appointments and I have been staying away from drugs and the drug lifestyle. Its not who I am, there is no future there.”[19]

    [19] Exhibit A2, page 1.

36. The Applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia in prison and that diagnosis was confirmed by a psychiatrist in immigration detention in November 2021. However, there is not a clear link between the apparent schizophrenia and the Applicant’s drug use or offending. Nor did he see a link. He recalled having symptoms, being auditory hallucinations since he was a child, and thinking it was normal. He still has occasional symptoms, which do not bother him. He was on schizophrenia medication, but he said it made him feel like a zombie. He now takes mirtazapine, an anti-depressant, which is not for schizophrenia.[20] I am not satisfied that schizophrenia plays into the risk of re-offending. Moreover, there is some doubt about the current accuracy of the schizophrenia diagnosis. A treating psychiatrist in immigration detention opined that it was in remission. Mr Greg Hutcheon, psychologist, treats him in immigration detention. He provided a report in April 2024 in which he said:

    “The author notes that his reported history of schizophrenia appeared unconvincing and given the collateral and Gavin’s reports regarding this period it appeared more likely to be culturally bound auditory hallucinations he had experienced, or a drug induced psychosis. There was no indication of any positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia during the period of treatment.”[21]

    [20] Transcript, page 82, lines 24 to 41.

    [21] Exhibit A2, page 64.

37. The Applicant has been doing SMART recovery since 2022 or earlier. In addition, he has done some courses, such as a “Do-it program”, engaged with Narcotics Anonymous, and he has engaged with a psychologist in detention. He said these had taught him a great deal about himself and helped him identify that the root cause of his behaviour was unresolved childhood trauma, for which he is now receiving help.

38. The Applicant had six sessions with Mr Hutcheon in mid-2023 and another 12 in early 2024. His report indicates that the Applicant disclosed that he was sexually abused by a local police officer, who insisted on picking him up after school, on at least two occasions when he was about nine or ten years old. He sought counselling to deal with this. He also grew up with domestic violence. His father drank, and physically abused him, his mother and his siblings.  He was in and out of home since age 12, often homeless due to difficulties with his father. The Applicant said he has found value in counselling, for example, he has learnt now to look at the police differently and is not scared of them anymore.

39. The Applicant was on an Opioid Substitution Treatment Program (“OSTP”) for six months while he was struggling. He claimed not to have used Suboxone[22] in detention, except for three times so he would qualify for the program. International Health and Medical Services (“IHMS”) records corroborate his request to be on the program, although they do not clearly corroborate him using Suboxone to get on the program. Those records also indicate that in July 2024, he asked to come off it because of his upcoming Tribunal hearing.[23] In the hearing, he said it was starting to make him feel sick and he also wanted to show that he was making progress.[24] It is only very recently that the Applicant has not needed the OSTP program to remain free of illicit drugs.

    [22] Suboxone contains both buprenorphine and naloxone, whereas Subutex contains only buprenorphine.

    [23] Exhibit R3, pages 13 to 14.

    [24] Transcript, page 96, lines 25 to 33.

40. If the Applicant gets his visa back, he intends to continue drug and alcohol counselling, and accessing support services for his mental health. His supports in the community include ADIS (Alcohol and Drug Information Service), Biala (a community health centre), and SMART Recovery, which he expects will provide similar supports to Narcotics Anonymous. He will also see a counsellor about his trauma. He thinks if he were to relapse, he would not isolate himself from those who care about him like he did last time, as they know about his problems and he feels that he could talk to them.

41. The Applicant would like to resume his relationship with Natasha after he sorts out his mental health and gets a job. It appears that at one time, Natasha used drugs but not since she has known the Applicant. They met through sporting friends, who did not use drugs, and she encouraged the Applicant not to use drugs. I am satisfied that this relationship, if it continues in the community, will not be a bad thing, although I am not confident that Natasha would be able to stop the Applicant from using drugs, given she was not able to do that before.

42. The Applicant plans to do a TAFE course so he can teach people to do the job he used to do. Ms White, his friend of around 10 years, has offered accommodation, and her help to reintegrate into life outside the detention centre. She will employ him in a small business she is starting - she will find things that he can do in the business. She was a high-functioning drug user in the past but is clean now.

1. The Applicant’s long-term plan is to work in the mines, where Cade works, as a trainer/assessor when he gets his TAFE qualification. Cade gave evidence that his employer conducts random drug testing of all employees and includes drug testing in the annual medical assessments. A positive test would generally result in instant dismissal.

2. I accept that the accommodation, support and short-term employment that Ms White has offered to the Applicant will be grounding and helpful to his self-esteem. I am satisfied that this long-term employment, if the Applicant can get it, would be protective against drug use. I am satisfied that the Applicant has sensible, realistic, and protective goals and plans.    

3. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was not honest with the Tribunal about his offending and his drug use, among other things. I accept that. There were many instances when he gave evidence, denying or downplaying his drug use or offending, that contradicted prior evidence or was inconsistent with independent evidence. The Applicant was consistently dishonest with police who spoke with him about various offences. He is clearly unwilling to grapple with the seriousness and extent of his drug use and offending. This is cause for concern with respect to his continued rehabilitation.

4. However, the Applicant was honest in other ways. The only reason the extent of his drug use in prison is known is because he admitted it to a CSO. He has been through the Tribunal process before and knows that ties to the Australian community count in his favour, yet he did not seek to exaggerate those ties. Further, his evidence in the hearing that some of the IHMS records about him were incorrect is consistent with an IHMS record, dated 8 May 2024, in which he disputed some entries in his records after reviewing them.

5. I am satisfied that the Applicant is genuinely committed to abstaining from illicit drugs and to a law-abiding lifestyle. He has done a lot to address the factors that contributed to his drug use and offending. He is better positioned that he was every other time he was released from custody. He has also been clean of methamphetamine for over three years. However, he lacks insight into his drug dependency, continually understating it. Even with his determination and the support around him, I think there is a very real risk he will relapse and descend into petty crime again, making a nuisance of himself and driving when he should not.  

6. I note that I do not think the Applicant poses any risk of violent offending or any sort of family violence. There is simply no reliable evidence of violent conduct. Two prison incident reports state that he was in a fight and in an altercation, respectively, but no helpful details are given. Another incident was an attack on him that happened because he refused to join a prison gang. That is, he was attacked for refusing to involve himself in anti-social activity. Nor is there any evidence of aggression apart from a meek and futile threat against a police officer, an unproven allegation by his former mother-in-law, and an unproven allegation by Natasha’s friend.

7. Given the sort of harm that would result from the Applicant relapsing and re-offending, I do not consider the risk of that to be unacceptable.  

8. Primary Consideration 1 weighs moderately against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. It would be low if not for the risk of re-offending. I will now address Primary Consideration 5, as it is the only other mandatory consideration that weighs against the Applicant. 

   PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

9. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.[25]

   [25] Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction.

10. The Applicant has repeatedly breached the expectations of the Australian community. His offending when he was affected by drugs shows disregard for the laws that govern the community in which he wishes to live. However, prior to that, he lived a law-abiding, productive life in Australia for 15 years, living up to the community’s expectations. None of his offending falls into the categories that are of particular concern to the Australian community according to this Primary Consideration.      

11. Primary Consideration 5 weighs to a low extent against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. 

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: STRENGTH NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

12. Here, I should consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant’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.

13. I should also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to:

    (a)  how long the Applicant has resided in Australia, including whether s/he arrived as a young child, noting that:

    (i)less weight should be given where the Applicant began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

    (ii)more weight should be given to time the Applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community; and

    (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.

14. The Applicant moved to Australia in 2000 when he was 21 years old. He has spent 24 years, which is more than half his life, here. He regards himself as Australian. During his first 15 years in Australia, he worked consistently, paid taxes and raised a child.

15. The Applicant has other ties to the community through sport. He played for Logan City Rugby Union for around 10 years, and he helped coach and referee as his son played in the junior grades.

16. His social ties to the community include his friend, Ms White. Their friendship started when Ms White was being verbally attacked by some people and it appeared that they would become violent towards her. The Applicant stepped in and deescalated the situation. Their friendship remains very strong. I accept that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would cause her some emotional hardship. 

17. The Applicant’s social ties also include a group of indigenous Australians who he has known since before his descent into drug dependency. In late 2021 and early 2022, Mr B J Wightman and Ms D Uren, who both identified themselves as Aboriginal Elders, wrote letters of support for the Applicant. They attested that the Applicant had been a part of their community for several years.[26] He had shown younger members of the community knowledge and wisdom, and they were very fond of him.

    [26] Mr Wightman said 10 years while Ms Uren said more than six years.

18. A former neighbour and friend wrote a letter describing the Applicant as someone with a firm sense of community and good family values. She said he was one of the first to volunteer if anyone was in need of assistance for things such as working bees, mowing a sick neighbour’s yard, bringing a meal for an elderly neighbour or cleaning up the street after a storm. This description seems more applicable to the period before 2016.

19. The Applicant has one child, a 24-year-old son who lives in Australia. When the Applicant was made to leave the family home, his son stayed. He had limited contact with him after that, partly because he did not want his son to see him in the state he was in. Since around 2022, they have been in regular phone contact, however the Applicant reduced that leading up to the hearing as he did not want to cause his son stress about these proceedings. He said he was supportive of his son during his university studies. He loves his son and wants to make their relationship stronger.

20. The Applicant and Natasha continued their relationship after he was incarcerated. He indicated that they have found it hard because he is not able to be a real partner to her while he is in custody, and she feels let down. Their communication has dwindled to around one phone call per week. He would like to be in a relationship with her if he gets his visa back, but first he needs to “sort out” his mental health and get an income. They have discussed this and she understands. 

21. The Applicant’s parents and his seven siblings live in Australia. His parents live in the Brisbane area, but they might move to Darwin. The Applicant is in frequent communication with his mother. She provided a letter of support and gave evidence in the last hearing. She clearly loves the Applicant and wants him to stay in Australia. She has had health problems such as cancer (in remission), a hip replacement and type 2 diabetes. She suffered a stroke in May or June 2024, which has caused some loss of function. The Applicant’s father provides any help she needs. While he is in good health, he is ageing. The Applicant would like to help his mother and be around in case she has a fall or something like that. He said he chose to return to Brisbane in 2013 and not to work away, in order to save his relationship but also to be closer to his parents because they were ageing. He used to help around the house, doing things like gardening and shopping. 

22. The Applicant maintains a relationship with each of his siblings, although none are dependent on him in any way. He seems closest to Kenneth, who suffers from bipolar disorder and lives in care. He speaks with Kenneth on weekends when Kenneth is with his parents. Another brother, Shyan, wrote a letter of support for the last hearing. So did Cade and a sister, Whitney. They also gave evidence in that hearing, and Cade gave evidence in this proceeding. Cade has an adult son who asks about the Applicant.   

23. I accept that the Applicant’s parents and siblings would be saddened if he were removed from Australia, and it would mean he could not potentially assist his parents as they get older. However, he could maintain the sort of contact he currently has with them from New Zealand, and there are other siblings who can assist his parents if they move to Darwin as Whitney, Cade and another sibling live there.   

24. This Primary Consideration weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

25. Here, I must determine whether a non-revocation decision is or is not in the best interests of a child (under the age of 18 at the time) affected by the decision. Where there is more than one child affected, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.[27]

    [27] Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction.

26. The Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration, which relevantly include:

    ·     the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the Applicant. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);

    ·     the impact of the Applicant’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

    ·     the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;

    ·     whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; and

    ·     any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child).

27. The Applicant has three minor nephews and one minor niece. His nephews, aged 15, 11 and 7 are the sons of his sister Whitney. His niece, “C”, who recently turned 17, is Cade’s daughter.  

28. They all live in Darwin and the Applicant has had minimal contact with them since being incarcerated.

29. According to Whitney, the Applicant always maintained active support in her sons’ passion to play Rugby. Her sons would be “sad and heartbroken”, especially the eldest, if the Applicant is deported.

30. According to Cade, C regularly asks about the Applicant. She “had a bit of a close attachment to him”.  The Applicant explained that while he has been in detention, he has limited contact with his nieces and nephews because it is emotionally challenging to engage fully while being physically distant. His hope is to be an active and present uncle in their lives once released, and to support them in every way he can. However, currently he is trying to shield them from the pain of potential separation if he is deported.

31. Unbeknownst to him, C took that protective behaviour as rejection. In June 2024, she wrote a letter in which she said she used to think of the Applicant as a superhero. She said “he probably does not remember me” and asked for him to be given one last chance. Her letter ended with, “I know no-one is really going to listen to a 17-year-old girl”. The letter prompted the Applicant to contact C and starts to repair their relationship. He did not put her letter forward in this proceeding because he found it heartbreaking, but he referred to it when answering questions about C. Contrary to C’s expectations, the Tribunal is interested in what she has to say. I asked for the letter, and it is in evidence.[28] The fact that C wrote a letter in support of the Applicant despite thinking he probably did not remember her speaks to the positive impression he must have made with her before his life fell apart.

    [28] Exhibit A3.

32. I am satisfied that the Applicant was a good uncle to his niece and nephews when he was in contact with them.  All these children have parents looking after them, and none are dependent on the Applicant in any way. They can all contact him if he is in New Zealand. If the Applicant moves to Darwin, as he plans to, he can have more meaningful contact with them and make a more positive contribution as an uncle.  

33. Natasha has four children aged 15, 12, 8 and 6. Three of them were living with other family members for most of the time, while the Applicant lived with Natasha. It appears that their father was not around, and two of them looked to the Applicant to fill that void. He used to have frequent contact with them when he was first in detention, but since the last Tribunal hearing, he has had very little contact with them as he does not want to form a relationship with them that places obligations upon him that he cannot uphold.  He does not want to break their hearts, and he has communicated that to them. If he gets his visa back, he hopes to continue his relationship with Natasha in the community. He does not want to do anything that would come between the children and their father, but he is “100 per cent” willing to fulfil a step-parent role.

34. The Applicant is not the biological parent of these children. They are not dependent on him in any way and there is no evidence that they have suffered any hardship from being separated from him. That is partly because he has, quite responsibly, made sure they do not come to love and rely on him in circumstances where he is at risk of deportation. If he continues his relationship with Natasha, these children will have a step-parent who has proven that he thinks about how his actions impact them and tries to prioritise their best interests. There is potential for him to make a positive contribution to their lives if he stays off drugs and he continues his relationship with Natasha.    

35. While the children mentioned above are not the Applicant’s own children, their best interests warrant some limited weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

    EXTENT OF IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED

36. I must take into account the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of New Zealand), taking into account:

    (a)the Applicant’s age and health;

    (b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and

    (c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in New Zealand.

37. The Applicant is a 45-year-old man. He suffered bilateral tendonitis from 2015 and, according to his evidence, he now suffers from “what’s left behind apparently after tendonitis”, which he names as “lateral epicondylitis disorder”.[29] His hands and arms cannot bear weight or pressure. However, if he rests them, he gets pins and needles and loses function. He cannot do the work he did for 17 years in Australia. The Applicant also has a vulnerability to drug dependency, possible schizophrenia, and he currently relies on anti-depressant medication. 

    [29] Transcript, page 19 lines 20 to 24.

38. As the Applicant lived in New Zealand into adulthood, I am not satisfied that he would face any substantial language or cultural barriers. It was conceded, and I accept, that New Zealand has a comparable system of social, medical and economic support to that of Australia, and this support would be just as available to the Applicant as to other citizens of New Zealand.

39. It is not known what the Applicant’s employment prospects would be in New Zealand although they are limited by his physical condition. He would be able to access income support.

40. The Applicant does not have friends or family in New Zealand, so he will be without familial or social support there. He will, however, be able to maintain contact with his family and friends from New Zealand using telephone or electronic means. I am satisfied that he will be able to access support for his mental health and rehabilitation needs as he does in Australia. 

41. This Other Consideration weighs to a limited extent in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation.

    IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS

42. The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

43. I accept that the Applicant has had a long history of employment within the construction and mining sector. He cannot perform the work he used to because of his medical condition. However, he indicated that he has plenty of experience as a crane operator, rigger and dogman, and he wants to use his skills and experience to teach others to do that work. According to his brother, Cade, the TAE40122 TAFE course, which is the trainer assessor Cert IV stage 1 course, will qualify him to do that. The Applicant can get funding to do the qualifying course, but he cannot do it in immigration detention.

44. Cade is a crane operator with Freo Crane Services at the McArthur River Mine in the Northern Territory. He is also an accredited trainer for Bencorp Australia. His operations work involves multiple different types and sizes of cranes. He explained that a rigger goes where a crane cannot reach and uses lifting devices or mechanical aids. Part of his reason for moving into training-assessing is the shortage of skilled labour and tradespersons in Australia, which he said is common knowledge and has especially been the case post-COVID. At his work there are five people who can do training-assessing work and they barely cover the workload each time there is in influx of workers. In his opinion, it would benefit the industry to have more people who can train unskilled labourers to do craning and rigging work to address the industry shortage. It follows that it would benefit the industry if the Applicant became a trainer-assessor. 

1. According to Cade, the Applicant would need a security clearance which would involve a criminal history check going back two or three years. He would not need a driving license or medical clearance. He would need a blue card. If I accept that, it seems likely that the Applicant would be employable in that role. 

2. Cade provided a list of jobs advertised by his employer in the previous 28 days. It showed 12 advertisements for, variously, the roles of rigger, heavy-lift rigger, crane operator, and crane supervisor, with one advertisement for rigger being for multiple positions. These are the vacancies advertised by just one employer. This document corroborates Cade’s evidence. None of the positions were located in the Northern Territory. However, the work is FIFO so, logically, providing training anywhere would help fill vacancies. 

3. If the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, it would not cause any detriment to any Australian business interest. If he is allowed to stay in Australia, and gains the employment he hopes to gain, it will benefit the industry by helping to fill roles that need to be filled in the mining and construction sector which are both well known to be important to the Australian economy. His contribution would not be on the scale of what is contemplated in the Direction, which is something that would significantly affect the delivery of a major project or important service, but it would make a clear positive difference. I allocate limited weight in favour of the Applicant under this Other Consideration.   

   CONCLUSION

4. I am now required to weigh all of the Considerations in accordance with the Direction. None of the mandatory considerations weigh heavily one way or another. Primary Consideration 1 weighs to a moderate extent, and Primary Consideration 5 weighs to a low extent, against revocation of the visa cancellation. Primary Consideration 3 weights moderately in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation. Primary Considerations 4 and Other Considerations (b) and (c) each weigh to a limited extent in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation. Even allowing for Primary Consideration 1 to be given more weight than the other considerations, and prioritising the protection of the Australian community, the balance tips slightly in favour of revocation. Therefore, there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

   DECISION

5. The decision under review is set-aside and the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding 129 (one-hundred and twenty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy

.......[SGD].................................................................

Associate

Dated: 10 October 2024

Date of hearing:

20, 21 and 26 August 2024

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Ms Marta Mamarot

Southwest Migration

Solicitor for the Respondent

Ms Elle Tattersall

Minter Ellison

Annexure A: Exhibit List

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
RB	Remittal Bundle (1042 pages) ·     RB:R1- RB:R4 ·     RB:A1- RB:A2 ·     RB:D1- RB:D2	R	Various	27 February 2024
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (7 pages)	A	Undated	1 August 2024
A2	Applicant’s Tender Bundle (82 pages)	A	Various	15 August 2024
A3	Letter from C (2 pages)	A	4 June 2024	21 August 2024
A4	Applicant’s written closing submissions (9 pages)	A	10 September 2024	10 September 2024
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (15 pages)	R	13 August 2024	13 August 2024
R2	Respondent’s Tender Bundle (items 1 to 6, 191 pages)	R	Various	13 August 2024
R3	Respondent’s Supplementary Tender Bundle (59 pages)	R	Various	19 August 2024
R4	Document entitled ‘FREO Job Evidences’ (118 pages)	R	Various	20 August 2024
R5	Respondent’s written closing submissions (10 pages)	R	27 September 2024	27 September 2024