Vaezmousavi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2021] AATA 366

Vaezmousavi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 366 (1 February 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):               2020/4119

Re:Seyed Ali Vaezmousavi

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member

Date:1 February 2021

Date of written reasons:        3 March 2021

Place:Sydney

For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on 15 May 2020 and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration with a finding that the Applicant is a person of good character in accordance with paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

..........................[sgd]..............................................

Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – refusal – whether Applicant of good character – multiple traffic offences – whether regular pattern of offending showing disregard for the law – whether pattern of escalation of seriousness of offending – whether seriousness of offending detracted from good character –  decision set aside and remitted

LEGISLATION      

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

CASES

Alemu and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 3352

Bowdler and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 347

Safar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 503

Siddons and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 177

Wang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 89

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Citizenship Policy Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 - Assessing good character under the Citizenship Act

REASONS FOR DECISION

Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member

3 March 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. On 15 February 2019, the Applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

2. He was requested to provide a copy of his Online Driving Record,[1] which is reproduced at Appendix A with minor formatting adjustments. 

   [1] T13/166-168.

3. Based on the Applicant’s history of traffic offences, a delegate of the Respondent (the delegate) was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act). The delegate was therefore required, by reason of s 24(1A), to refuse the application.

4. On 15 May 2020, the delegate refused the application for conferral of Australian citizenship (the reviewable decision).

5. On 9 July 2020, the Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision dated 15 May 2020.[2]

   [2] T1/3.

   THE HEARING

6. The matter was heard by videoconference on 1 February 2021. The Applicant gave evidence and called two character witnesses, Mr Daniel Healy, and Ms Sian Hanigan.

7. On 1 February 2021, I granted the application for review, and made orders setting aside the reviewable decision and remitting the matter to the Respondent with a finding that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.

8. At the request of the Respondent I now provide written reasons.

   LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK               

9. Under the general eligibility criteria for citizenship specified in s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act, a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person, inter alia, is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

10. By virtue of s 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person satisfied the eligibility criteria under s 21(2). It is for an applicant to establish eligibility in terms of the applicable standards at the time of application.

11. I refer to the Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act[3]  (the Instruction), which states, under the heading ‘Procedural Instruction’:

    [3] T5/75-98.

    Good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. A person who is of good character is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made when making the Pledge of commitment should they be approved to become an Australian citizen.

    This Instruction provides a framework for assessing an applicant under the ‘good character’ provisions. Decision-makers must:

    ·     consider any character issues that arise on the facts of a case;

    ·     consider all relevant information;

    ·     guard against bias;

    ·     be mindful that the requirement to be of ‘good character’ does not mean that a person must be of ‘perfect character’;

    ·     be mindful that a person who may not have been of good character can become a person of good character;

    ·     continue to assess the character issues until satisfied, on a reasoned basis, having regard to the available evidence that an applicant is, or is not, of good character.

    In most cases, it would not be appropriate to automatically conclude that a person is not of good character based on the fact that the person has been convicted of an offence. A full assessment is required.

    The policy set out in this Instruction should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly. It is important to remember that, where a discretionary power is conferred in the Act, it should be exercised bearing in mind the facts of any particular case. This Instruction provides guidance to decision-makers but it cannot fetter any statutory discretion conferred by the Act (emphasis added).[4]

    [4] T5/78.

12. Paragraph 4.3 of the Instruction provides:

    4.3 What is good character

    Definition

    The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. The Federal Court (FC) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) have used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions. Most cases have adopted the definition from the Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431-432:

    Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

    The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:

    ·     characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;

    ·     distinguishing right from wrong; and

    ·     behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

    The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character.

    A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed.

    Given the significance of the grant of Australian citizenship, the assessment of the applicant’s character is an important component in the Minister’s decision to approve or refuse the applicant’s citizenship application. [5]

    [5] T5/78-79.

13. Paragraph 4.4 of the Instruction provides:

    4.4 An applicant who is of good character

    An applicant who is a person of good character would generally be expected to exhibit the following characteristics. Application of these principles should be considered in light of the facts of the particular case.

    As a general proposition, a person who is of good character would:

    ·     respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

    ·     be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds pay debts to the Commonwealth);

    ·     not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example

    ointentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or

    oother material deception during visa and citizenship applications;

    oevading immigration control at the border or living unlawfully in the community after their visa ceased, or assisting others to do so, or involvement in people smuggling or trafficking;

    oknowingly entering into a bogus marriage or pretending to be a de facto partner of another person;

    oconcealing criminal convictions;

    ofraud against the Commonwealth such as tax fraud or Centrelink fraud;

    ogiving false names and/or addresses to police;

    ·     not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant;

    ·     not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example multiple and/or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without a licence);

    ·     not associate with persons who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia, such as organisations involved in war crimes, criminal gangs, OMCGs or youth gangs;

    ·     not have committed, or been involved in, or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide not be involved in terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia.

    Application of these principles should be considered in the light of the facts of the particular case and should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly. The above examples are intended only to provide broad guidance to decision-makers about the types of behaviours which might support an adverse conclusion about a person’s character. Ultimately a decision maker must exercise any statutory discretion bearing in mind the facts of any particular case.

    It is also necessary to consider any other information that is relevant to a person’s character such as information provided by an applicant about his/her family life; for example, raising children, being in a stable home environment, being responsibly employed, paying taxes, any community work undertaken, and any other matter that is relevant to an assessment of character in the circumstances of a particular case. This would include expressions of genuine remorse for past wrong-doing and the time that has elapsed since the wrong-doing. Ultimately a decision-maker should weigh up all the factors relevant to an assessment of an applicant’s character, which might include a number of factors some of which support reaching an adverse conclusion about a person’s character and some of which support reaching a positive conclusion about a person’s character (emphasis added).[6]

    [6] T5/80.

14. Paragraph 4.7 of the Instruction[7] sets out a non-exhaustive range of factors that a decision-maker may take into account in determining whether a person is of good character. It is stressed that the decision-maker should take into account all the relevant facts of the case.

    [7] T5/85-88.

    CONSIDERATION

15. The Applicant came to Australia from Iran to study. He arrived on 1 April 2009 as the holder of a Student (subclass 573) visa. On 5 February 2018, he was granted a permanent Spouse (subclass 801) visa.

16. He gained his learner licence (Class R) on 22 January 2016 and prior to this did not have an Australian driver’s licence. I note that at the hearing the Applicant stated that when he arrived in Australia, he held a Malaysian driver’s licence which, he said, authorised him to drive in Australia.[8]

    [8] ASFIC, [8]-[10].

17. The Applicant’s offence history is outlined in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions[9] (SFIC)  as follows:

    [9] RSFIC, [6].

18.     Date	Offence	19.     Penalty
6 August 2019	Exceed speed by more than 30 kilometres per hour but not more than 45 kilometres per hour.	The Applicant's licence was suspended from this date to 5 November 2019 (ST1, p18) and then from 10 December 2019 for a period of three months. $500
9 November 2018	Driver did not comply with the conditions of the learner licence.	$263
4 March 2011	Driver was found driving unlicensed.	$250
30 March 2011	Exceed speed limit by more than 10 kilometres per hour but not more than 20 kilometres per hour.	$211
8 March 2011	Exceed speed limit by not more than 10 kilometres per hour.	$90
11 July 2009	Exceed speed limit by more than 10 kilometres per hour but not more than 20 kilometres per hour.	$197
29 June 2009	Exceed speed limit by not more than 15 kilometres per hour.	$81
27 June 2009	Exceed speed limit by not more than 15 kilometres per hour.	$81
23 June 2009	Exceed speed limit by more than 15 kilometres per hour.	$243

1. I note that, at the present time, four of those offences are more than ten years old and would, for most purposes, be expunged from his criminal record. By the end of March 2021, a further three offences would be more than ten years old. For those seven offences, which are close to a decade or more old, he received fines of $1,153. It is hard to see how those offences standing alone after such a time could impeach a person’s good character.

2. I note the statement in the Instruction that:

   In most cases, it would not be appropriate to automatically conclude that a person is not of good character based on the fact that the person has been convicted of an offence. A full assessment is required.[10]

   [10] T5/78.

3. Of the two remaining offences, one involved failing to comply with a condition of a learner’s permit in failing to display an L Sign. This offence was committed in November 2018. It cannot, for present purposes, be regarded as a serious offence. It certainly did not form part of a steady stream of similar offences showing a wilful defiance of licensing conditions.

4. The remaining offence, committed on 6 August 2019, involved exceeding the speed limit by a fair margin, more than 30 but less than 45 kilometres per hour. This was a more substantial offence, for which the Applicant received a mandatory $1,000 fine together with a three-month licence disqualification.

5. This speeding offence was covered in some detail at the hearing.  The Applicant said that he was riding a motorcycle on a motorway restricted to 80 kilometres per hour. He was following a car that was being driven erratically.  He accelerated past the car on the inside lane (the lanes were marked) but in doing so he exceeded the speed limit by a substantial amount (more than 30 but less than 45 kilometres per hour). He said that the manoeuvre was necessary in order to avoid a dangerous situation. I note that the suspension period associated with this offence was reduced on appeal. The Tribunal does not have a copy of the court transcript. It is apparent from the fact that the appeal was upheld, and that the fine and disqualification period were both reduced, that the Magistrate did not see the case as falling into the worst category.

6. The concept of good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. It would be a very severe application of the standard required to find that his split-second decision-making on this occasion, coupled with the other offences in his traffic record, fails the standard.

7. The Respondent contends that:

   Over the last 10 and a half years, the applicant has “regularly” displayed a disregard for Australian law, noting that his first offence was approximately two months after his arrival in Australia and whilst he did not hold an Australian driver licence.[11]

   The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not respect and abide by the law in Australia.

   [11] RSFIC [25].

8. The Respondent’s SFIC states:

   The Applicant's offences are continuous and repetitive in nature. There is no evidence of his reformed behaviour in relation to this type of offence available to demonstrate that he is now of good character, especially because the applicant's most recent offence, being his most serious in terms of the excess speed and fine imposed and have his licence disqualified, was after the date that he applied for citizenship. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant is of good character as insufficient time has passed for the applicant to establish this.[12]

   [12] Ibid [36].

9. I also note the reasoning of the delegate in relation to the Applicant’s traffic history:

   Over the period of approximately 10 and a half years, you have displayed a regular disregard for NSW traffic law and your offences are repetitive and gradually getting worse over time, and as such fallen short of community standards of which there is a standing expectation that you would respect. In your personal response to this matter, you apologised for the offences, however, you did not show any remorse or regret. You have not undertaken any driving courses or any other course to improve your driving, and as stated previously, your offences have been getting gradually worse over time. Observance of the law is a significant value for consideration in this assessment and in the absence of any mitigating information; I find that you your traffic history runs contrary to a finding that you are currently of good character.

   ...

   Based on the evidence before me, I find that your disregard for the law in recent years, the repetitive nature of some of the offences noted and the limited attention you have afforded these matters initially in your application and in your response to the invitation to comment process do not satisfy me that you are of good character at the time of decision on your application. You therefore do not satisfy paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act.[13]

   [13] T2/33-34.

10. The delegate’s findings are troubling in several respects.

    (a)First, in referring to the Applicant’s record, the delegate referred to repeated breaches of the QLD traffic regulations’.[14] The Applicant does not have any offences in Queensland.  The delegate stated, ‘However with the provision of your QLD traffic report (Attachment E), I note you have committed repeated breaches of the QLD traffic regulations since August 2009 …’;

    (b)Second, the delegate does not refer to the fact that, on 9 January 2020, the Applicant’s appeal against sentence for the 2018 offence was upheld, to the extent that a fine of $1,000 was reduced to $500, and the mandatory disqualification period was revoked. I note that the Decision Record is dated 15 May 2020;

    (c)Third, the record does not show a ‘regular’ pattern of offending.

    (i)The first four offences occurred over a three-week period in 2009;

    (ii)Two years passed before the next three offences were committed within a few days in 2011;

    (iii)More than seven years passed before any further offending occurred. The first of these occurred in 2018: failing to comply with a licensing condition, namely, failing to display the L Sign; the second, a speeding offence, in 2019.

    (d)Finally, characterisation of the offending as ‘getting worse over time’,[15] and that it was a gradual worsening, is not sustainable. The offences do not show any pattern of escalation, or offence seriousness, although it is true that the final offence in the sequence is a serious speeding offence.

    [14] T2/33-34.

    [15] Ibid.

    Case Law on Traffic Offences

1. The Respondent sought to bring the present case within the ambit of decisions where traffic offences had contributed to a finding of a lack of good character, referring to the following decisions:

   ·In Wang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 89, the relevant offences included negligent driving causing death, drink driving, and driving while disqualified.

   ·In Siddons and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 177 (Fletcher M), there was an extensive history of speeding and driving under the influence, without authority. The Applicant served a period in prison and there is a page and a half of offending over 40 years.

   ·In Bowdler and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 347, the Applicant was convicted of drink driving in Australia and driving while disqualified. He also committed various offences in the United Kingdom but did not make full disclosure on his Citizenship application.

   ·In Safar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 503, (Webb M) at [28], the Applicant had an offence history that extended beyond traffic offences. His traffic offences included: exceeding the speed limit (112 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre per hour zone); driving while suspended; and driving while under the influence of alcohol. He received a roadside suspension of licence, was convicted and fined $1400, and received a six-month Good Behaviour Bond. He had also received an Habitual Offender warning, at [10].

   ·In Alemu and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 3352, the Applicant’s record also extended beyond motor traffic offences. His traffic offences included a road rage incident, and a refusal to disclose his name and address.

2. I disagree with the Respondent’s submission. None of the cases referred to are comparable with the present case. In each there was a combination of driving and other offences, and offences involving alcohol. 

3. I note that none of the Applicant’s traffic offences involved alcohol.

   Positive Evidence

4. I note paragraph 4.4 of the Instruction which states:

   It is also necessary to consider any other information that is relevant to a person’s character such as information provided by an applicant about his/her family life; for example, raising children, being in a stable home environment, being responsibly employed, paying taxes, any community work undertaken, and any other matter that is relevant to an assessment of character in the circumstances of a particular case. This would include expressions of genuine remorse for past wrong-doing and the time that has elapsed since the wrong-doing. Ultimately a decision-maker should weigh up all the factors relevant to an assessment of an applicant’s character, which might include a number of factors some of which support reaching an adverse conclusion about a person’s character and some of which support reaching a positive conclusion about a person’s character (emphasis added).[16]

   [16] T5/80.

5. The Applicant stated that he has completed a Diploma in Engineering and has just over a year to go to complete his engineering degree at Wollongong University. He was asked about his educational experience at the hearing and replied:

   I do have a diploma of engineering already and I do have about a year of my bachelor of engineering left. If you don’t mind, if I could get into detail with this a little bit. When I 30 first came to Australia it was to study engineering but Iran is a very politically volatile country and Iran got sanctioned so I didn’t have the means to actually pay for my university fees anymore. All of a sudden I couldn’t study anymore, basically. I had to find something else to do. I started working - I got into retail, that’s where I met Sian - then I got into retail 35 management. I started paying for my uni myself, little bits that I could and I’m still doing that. It’s just that I didn’t have the initial support that I came here with anymore and that just made life so much more difficult for me. I had to not only pay for my uni myself, but also didn’t have any support to live. I had to work fulltime and study part-time for a very long period of 40 time. That’s why I finished my diploma but that’s why I still have a year of my engineering degree left because it is very difficult for me to study fulltime, pay for university fees upfront and actually work fulltime as well.[17]

   [17] Transcript, 1 February 2021, p 32 [30] – [40].

6. He told the Tribunal that he has no desire to return to Iran and wishes to become an Australian citizen.   He said:

   It’s just not that I want to become a citizen to finish my degree. I want to finish my degree so I’m a better citizen and I 5 think my friends know that about me. It’s just hard to say these things on paper. I don’t think I’ve wanted anything more in my life, to be honest and to be an Australian just for the fact of being an Australian, not for any other reason. I could have had a very good life overseas - my parents are - they love (sic) overseas - my dad’s a university professor - I could have been to any uni degree (sic) that I wanted to but I chose to come here because I really wanted to. There’s a certain sense of belonging that if feel here that I don’t feel anywhere else. I’ve lived most of life in Australia now.[18]

   [18] Transcript, 1 February 2021, p 33 [5] – [10].

7. The Applicant said that the imposition of international sanctions upon Iran had limited the amount of family support he has received from Iran and that has slowed his studies.

   Character Witnesses

8. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard from two character witnesses called by the Applicant. Ms Sian Hanigan, a high school teacher, and Mr Daniel Healey. Each testified to his good character.

9. Mr Healey stated:

   Ali, I’ve known since 2014 and for the duration of that time I’ve known him as nothing but a respectful, friendly, caring individual. I actually, as you probably noticed from the addresses we both gave, we’re housemates at the moment. I care for him very, very dearly as a friend and I want the best for him as a person. I would say he’s in many regards a much better person than I. He gives blood - I could never do that, I’m scared of needles - he goes out of his way to help others - he cooks meals for friends when they come over. He coaches my friends in basketball and whenever I’m in a place where I’m not okay he’s there for me. I had quite a bad breakup back in 2016 and was living in 30 Brisbane at the time, completing my post-grad and I was living with my girlfriend and he actually housed me for a duration of time and cared for me and gave me support. I think even though we have really looked at driving offences, which I have and a lot of people in this room have, the other side of the coin is that Ali is a really decent human being and a really caring person and I think fulfils a lot of the values that Australia holds dear.[19]

   [19] Transcript, 1 February 2021, p 34 [20] – [35].

10. Ms Hanigan met the Applicant during the course of employment.  She was his manager. She said in evidence:

    I guess I would say similar things to Mr Healy. It is hard seeing Ali painted as all these driving offences and it does give us one side of him - one that I know he’s very remorseful for. He has lots of regrets and I know moving forward he really wants to be a better person - living in Australia to do so. Obviously as well I was his employee for some time and just watching Ali with customers - he is such a respectful person and he really just went above and beyond the people. After he actually left the business that I worked for - quite often I would have customers come in and ask about him and what he was doing. He really made time for people and showed an interest in people. He’s quite a unique individual and it’s been hard for me, with my toddler and also looking after my ill father, to take the time out for this but there’s no one I would rather do it for. He’s a very unique and special person and really respectful to others and he would make an amazing citizen.[20]

    [20] Transcript, 1 February 2021, p 35 [10] – [20].

11. I note that Mr Michael Palfrey, the Respondent’s solicitor, did not challenge the evidence given by Ms Hanigan and Mr Healey and accepted that the Applicant was a decent man. He said:

    I have listened to the evidence - I haven’t avoided the evidence of his friends and witnesses, which go to him being a decent chap in society and I don’t mean to belittle that, I accept the evidence of those close to him but that’s selective but it’s not disputed.[21]

    [21] Transcript, 1 February 2021, p 41-42.

12. The Applicant also provided a number of written character references attesting to his good character. I note that the delegate stated:

    The statutory declarations from people that know you describe you as helpful, caring, not violent, trustworthy, kind and of good character. Some of the declarants mentioned the matters which have appears on the National Police History Check report, however, they do not mention your ongoing difficulties in abiding by the traffic regulations. It is also unclear who these individuals are apart from their advice that they know you. On this basis, I find these declarations provide little credible insight into positive changes in your life since the period of offending which may lead to a finding that you are currently of good character.[22]

    [22] T2/33-34.

    CONCLUSION

13. My assessment after hearing all the evidence is that the Applicant is a person of good character. His driving record is something of an embarrassment but considered as a whole, it does not detract from his good character. I find, in light of his educational achievements and his employment record, his character references, and the relatively minor nature of the traffic offences, that he is of good character.

14. For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on 15 May 2020 and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration with a finding that the Applicant is a person of good character in accordance with paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

    APPENDIX A

    The nine traffic offences referred to in the Table above are marked by italics.

    14-01-2020                 Provisional driver - limit of One Passenger until 14-01-2021.

    14-01-2020 P2 Provisional Licence Issued (Class C)

    14-01-2020                 Provisional Licence Issued (Class R)

    09-01-2020                WOLLONGONG Court Appeal Upheld 14 JAN 20 GH

    11-12-2019                Appeal Lodged 12 DEC 19 LF

    Demerit Points Refusal of P2 Provisional (Class C) and P1 Provisional (Class R) to commence on 10-12-2019, for the offence(s) of 06-08-2019, 09-11-2018.

    Application for a further P2 Provisional (Class C) and P1 Provisional (Class R) licence will be considered on or after 10-03-2020.

    11-12-2019COPY OF REFUSAL NOTICE DATED 10-12-2019 SENT TO SUML111219 WOLLONGONG SERVICE CENTRE ON 11-12-2019 AS REQUESTED BY THE CUSTOMER.

    24-10-2019                WOLLONGONG Court

    ·     06-08-2019 EXCEED SPEED BY MORE THAN 30 KM/H BUT NOT MORE THAN 45 KM/H WHILST DRIVING/RIDING A MOTOR VEHICLE $500 5 GLCTM221119/358/1

    DISQ Until 06-11-2019 (Court Order) From 24-10-2019

    DISQ 3 MONTHS - S206B ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013.

    06-08-2019 Police Suspension of P2 Provisional 010650292 (Class C) and P1 Provisional (Class R) 4939869193 on 06-08-2019 until 05-11-2019.

    12-04-2019 P1 Provisional Licence Issued (Class R)

    12-12-2018 Demerit Points Warning P2 letter sent for the offence(s) of 09-11-2018.

    ·     09-11-2018 NOT COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF LEARNER LICENCE (NOT DISPLAY L SIGN(S) ) AS REQUIRED TI $263 2 4049127821345

    17-04-2018                Learner Licence Issued (Class R)

    07-12-2017 P2 Provisional Licence Issued (Class C)

    14-06-2016                Provisional driver - must not drive Prohibited Vehicles.

    14-06-2016 P1 Provisional Licence Issued (Class C)

    22-01-2016                Learner Licence Issued (Class C)

    04-03-2014                WOLLONGONG Court

    ·     06-02-2014 UNLICENSED DRIVER/RIDER – NEVER HELD A LICENCE - 1ST. OFFENCE IN 5 YRS (COURT CONVICTION) $250 GLCKW120314/632/1

    30-03-2011                STATE DEBT RECOVERY OFFICE

    ·     03-01-2011 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY MORE THAN 10 KM/H BUT NOT MORE THAN 20 KM/H WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE EO $211 6 OS/1

    Double demerit points provisions.

    08-03-2011                STATE DEBT RECOVERY OFFICE

    ·     29-11-2010 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY NOT MORE THAN 10 KM/H WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAMERA DETECTED) EO $90 1 6051036934067/1

    ·     11-07-2009 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY MORE THAN 10 KM/H BUT NOT MORE THAN 20 KM/H      WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAMERA DETECTED) $197

    ·     29-06-2009 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY NOT MORE THAN 15 KM/H WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAMERA DETECTED) TI $81

    ·     27-06-2009 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY NOT MORE THAN 15 KM/H WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAMERA DETECTED) TI $81

    ·     23-06-2009 EXCEED SPEED LIMIT BY MORE THAN 15 KM/H BUT NOT MORE THAN 30 KM/H WHILST DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAMERA DETECTED) TI $243

I certify that the preceding 41 (forty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member.

........................[sgd]............................................

Associate

Dated: 3 March 2021

Date of hearing:	1 February 2021
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Nick Poynder
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr Adam Byrnes, Visa & Citizenship Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Michael Palfrey, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers