Verrill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2025] ARTA 156

Verrill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 156 (26 February 2025)

Applicant/s:  VERRILL, David

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:               2023/6254

Tribunal:Senior Member Kennedy (second review)

Place:Adelaide

Date:26 February 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 26 February 2025 at 9:44am

Catchwords

MIGRATION – visa cancellation – Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa – Mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 – Where Applicant does not pass the character test –– Strangulation in a domestic violence context – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – whether there is another reason to revoke cancellation – consideration of Direction no. 110 – protection of Australian community –family violence – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia –best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of decision – extent of impediments if removed – Applicant is a 52 year old citizen of the United States of America –– Reviewable decision affirmed

Legislation

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5AB, 189, 198, 499(1), 499(2A), 501, 501(2), 501(3A), 501(6), 501(6)(a), 501(7), 501(7)(c), 501CA, 501CA(4), 501E, 5001(c)

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 (Cth)

Cases

Muggeridge v Minister Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200

Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2

Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; 246 FCR 146

Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security (2 September 2024) [2024] FCA 1003

Verrill v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 802

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138

Secondary Materials

Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 99: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (23 January 2023) – para 9.4

Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501C (21 June 2024) – paras 5.1(4), 5.2, 6, 7,  8, 8.1(1), 8.1(1)(a), 8.1(2), 8.1(2)(b), 8.1.1, 8.1.1(h), 8.1.1(1)(b), 8.1.2, 8.1.2(2)(a), 8.1.2(2)(b), 8.2, 8.3, 8.3(1), 8.4, 8.4(4), 8.4(4)(a), 8.4(4)(b), 8.4(4)(c), 8.4(4)(d), 8.4(4)(e), 8.4(4)(f), 8.4(4)(g), 8.4(4)(h), 8.5(1), 8.5(2), 8.5(1)(a), 8.5(2)(a). 8.5(2)(b), 8.5(2)(c), 8.5(2)(d), 8.5(2)(e), 8.5(2)(f), 8.5(3), 9, 9.2, 9.2(1)(a), 9.2(1)(b), 9.2(1)(c), 9.3

Statement of Reasons

1. The Applicant, Mr Verrill, is a 52-year old male born in the United States (DOB: 21 February 1972). Mr Verrill entered Australia as a 6-year old on 17 March 1978 and has never departed. Mr Verrill’s mother is an Australian citizen, but Mr Verrill has not applied for a grant of Australian citizenship by descent. Mr Verrill is a citizen of the United States.

2. Mr Verrill has an extensive criminal history consisting substantially of violence, family violence, breach of family violence orders and anti-social behaviour. Mr Verrill’s most recent offence, and the index offence which resulted in the automatic cancellation of his visa, was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, involving two counts of strangulation in a domestic violence context. For this, Mr Verrill was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment by the Brisbane District Court.

3. Prior to the automatic cancellation of Mr Verrill’s visa Mr Verrill held a Class BF transitional (Permanent) visa. On 3 February 2023 the Department issued Mr Verrill with a notice of cancellation under subsection 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that he had a substantial criminal record as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of a state (ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7(c)).[1]

   [1] T1, G7.

4. Mr Verrill made representations seeking revocation of the decision to cancel his visa on 6 February 2023.[2] On 24 August 2023, a delegate of the Respondent decided not to revoke the decision to cancel Mr Verrill’s visa.[3]

   [2] T1, G14.

   [3] T1, G3.

5. Mr Verrill applied for review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 25 August 2023. On 21 December 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal purported to affirm the decision under review. Mr Verrill appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

6. On 19 July 2024 the Federal Court quashed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and ordered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to determine the application according to law.[4]

   [4] Exhibit 6.

7. From 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

8. On 24 October 2024 a telephone directions hearing was held in the matter. I noted that amongst Mr Verrill’s grounds of appeal in the Federal Court was a ground alleging that Mr Verrill had been denied procedural fairness because he was not informed of his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to questions he had been asked by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and in cross-examination. Although the court had not found it necessary to rule on that ground, the ground was considered and the court observed it would generally be desirable to inform an unrepresented litigant of the existence of the privilege. Out of an abundance of caution, I ordered that the transcript of the proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be excised from the bundle of documents provided for the remittal, and I ordered Mr Verrill to re-submit any part of the transcript that he wished me to have regard to, after administering to him a clear warning about his right to decline to answer questions where the answer may tend to incriminate him. I also ordered the Respondent to submit any part of the transcript that he wished me to consider, on condition that any part of Mr Verrill’s evidence that may tend to incriminate him be redacted. Mr Verrill did not lodge an extract of the transcript, but the Respondent lodged a redacted copy of the transcript (Exhibit 5).[5] Mr Verrill, when asked and advised again about his privilege against self-incrimination, took no objection to me receiving Exhibit 5 in the form lodged by the Respondent.

   [5] Exhibit 5.

9. The hearing proceeded in Brisbane on 12 and 13 December 2024.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10. Under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, among other things:

    (a)the person does not pass the character test because of a substantial criminal record; and

    (b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory. 

11. A person has a substantial criminal record in the circumstances set out in subsection 501(7) of the Act. These circumstances include that the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (paragraph 501(7)(c) of the Act). This applies no differently for a sentence imposed for two or more offences (section 5AB of the Act).

12. If a visa is cancelled under subsection 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[6] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under subsection 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

    Ministerial Direction 110

    [6] Migration Act s 501CA(3).

13. Under subsection 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minister (subsection 499(2A)).

14. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘the Direction’). It is expressed to apply to the Tribunal in making a decision under section 501 or section 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.

15. An objective of Direction No 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under sections 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[7] In exercising the power under subsection 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction No 110 where relevant to the decision.[8]

    [7] Direction No 110 para 5.1(4).

    [8] Direction No 110 para 6.

16. Clause 5.2 of the Direction provides principles to provide a framework to approach decision making. These are:

    (1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

    (2)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

    (3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

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

    (5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

    (6)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.

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

    (8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[9]

    [9] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024) cl 5.2 (‘the Direction’).

17. The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in refusing or not revoking the cancellation of a visa.  It requires certain primary and other considerations to be considered in making a decision, and states that in taking these into account that:

    (1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

    (2) The primary consideration … (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

    (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[10]

    [10] Ibid cl 7.

18. The Direction does not limit the matters the Tribunal can consider in deciding if there is another reason the cancellation of a visa should be revoked.

    ISSUES

19. The issues before the Tribunal are therefore:

    (a)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by subsection 501(6) of the Migration Act; and

    (b)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked.[11]

    [11] See subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.

    DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?

20. As noted above, the character test is defined in subsection 501(6) of the Migration Act. Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by subsection 501(7). Relevant to Mr Verrill’s case, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.  

21. As Mr Verrill was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more by the Brisbane District Court on 16 December 2022, I find he has a substantial criminal record and he does not pass the character test.  

22. I note Mr Verrill was serving a sentence of imprisonment against a law of Queensland on a full time basis when his visa was cancelled on 3 February 2023.

    IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?

23. Clause 8 of the Direction contains five primary considerations, which are:

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

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

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

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

    (5)  expectations of the Australian community.

24. Clause 9 of the Direction contains other considerations, which are:

    (1)In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

    a)legal consequences of the decision;

    b)extent of impediments if removed;

    d)impact on Australian business interests.

25. I have considered each one in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of the Direction.

26. First however, by way of overview, Mr Verrill relies on a written statement of facts and contentions prepared on his behalf by counsel assisting him in his Federal Court proceedings.[12] Through those written submissions, Mr Verrill asks that I exercise the discretion inherent in the scheme to revoke the decision to cancel his visa.

    [12] Exhibit 2, ASFIC.

27. Mr Verrill submits that much of his offending occurred when he was alcohol or drug affected, including the index offence. In this regard, I observe that when Mr Verrill was asked about many of the incidents either appearing in his criminal antecedent report or by reference to Police records, his answer would be prefaced by an explanation that he had been heavily intoxicated at the time of the offending or alleged offending, and he could not recall the details. Mr Verrill was however at pains to explain that while he could not remember details, he did not quibble with any of the information regarding his offences or alleged offences, and said that he accepted responsibility.

28. Returning to Mr Verrill’s contentions, Mr Verrill submits that in response to his history of offending he has made significant efforts towards rehabilitation, and provided a body of evidence demonstrating his engagement with rehabilitative courses.

29. Mr Verrill contends that the fact of his serious offending is not a reason of itself to warrant [non-revocation] and I should apply more limited weight to the first primary consideration than I otherwise might in light of Mr Verrill’s work at rehabilitation.

30. Similarly, while recognising that much of his offending relates to family violence, the weight applied to the third primary consideration should also be reduced in light of his efforts at rehabilitation, particularly efforts directed at addiction and attitude.

31. Mr Verrill contends that significant weight in favour of revoking the visa cancellation should be applied to the second primary consideration, pointing to his arrival in Australia at the age of six, raising a family, building a career and developing a wide set of relationships and friendships and making positive contributions to Australia throughout his lifetime.

32. Mr Verrill further contends that the best interests of his two daughters and four grandchildren will be served by revoking the decision to cancel the visa and significant weight should be afforded to the third primary consideration.

33. Mr Verrill submits that he will face very significant impediments if removed to the United States, pointing to a number of physical ailments he has, including substance abuse, and the fact that he will have no connections to social services or healthcare in the United States and no clear understanding of how to access those services. It is submitted that in these circumstances Mr Verrill will face significant impediments in maintaining a basic living standard should he be removed to the United States.

34. Finally, Mr Verrill submits that his son’s business will be impacted adversely if he is removed to the United States as he will not be available to work in the business as he and his son plan in circumstances where other people performing the role intended for Mr Verrill have breached Mr Verrill’s son’s trust.

    The protection of the Australian community

35. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[13]

    [13] The Direction cl 8.1(1).

36. The Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[14]

    [14] Ibid.

37. Decision-makers should consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.[15]

    [15] Ibid cl 8.1(2).

    Nature and seriousness of the conduct

38. I must consider the nature and seriousness of Mr Verrill’s criminal offending or other conduct to date.[16] In doing so, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction No 110 provides that I must have regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are ‘viewed very seriously’ by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The Direction also provides that certain other crimes or conduct are considered to be serious. I note that while the Direction expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[17] 

    [16] Direction No 110 para 8.1(1).

    [17] Direction No 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a).

1. I note that in the previous proceedings Mr Verrill accepted the accuracy of his criminal antecedent report, mentioning only that he considered some of the statements (from Police reports) were ‘a bit embellished’, but accepted by pleading guilty to the offences in the court he had waivered all his rights to question what had been written about him.[18] Later, Mr Verrill explained that by suggesting the reports were not accurate he did not mean it was not black and white accurate, but he questioned the adjectives used.

   [18] Exhibit 5, pages 6 and 7.

   The index offending

2. I turn first to consider the ‘index offending’, being the convictions which are the foundations of the exercise of power in that they amount to Mr Verrill’s ‘substantial criminal record’. On 16 December 2022 Mr Verrill was sentenced for a vicious assault on a female victim that he had perpetrated on 22 February 2022.

3. Extracting the remarks of the sentencing Judge as follows also assists in understanding Mr Verrill’s expansive criminal history for violent family violence offending, and it can be seen that it was a matter that troubled his Honour greatly.

   HIS HONOUR: You have pleaded guilty today to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of strangulation. All occurred on the 22nd of February of this year. All are averred to be domestic violence offences and I accept all of them are. That is an aggravating feature under our law.

   It is an early plea. I am told, without demur from the Prosecution, that you had sought to conference the matter out in the Magistrates Court. That did not succeed, but you had indicated a plea of guilty prior to presentation of the indictment. The fact you have entered such an early plea will result in lesser sentences being imposed  on you than might have been the case had you taken the matter to trial and not succeeded. It may be some indication of remorse, but that needs to be seen against the background of your criminal history that I will come to in due course.

   All domestic violence offending is serious. Yours is no exception. You had, for a  short time, formed a sexual relationship with a woman on one of the islands in the bay. You had returned from the mainland drunk. She suggested that you stay with friends and come back the next day. You did not want to, but, in any event, to cut the story short, you ended up coming into the house without warning.

   You grabbed her and threw her into a television set, causing her to strike her head. You grabbed her by the hair, forced her into the kitchen and slammed her head into the kitchen bench at least twice. This caused pain. She noticed one of her teeth had been broken. You punched her in the stomach. It was a completely irrational reaction to what had occurred and might be inexplicable until one looks at your  criminal history.

   In any event, you grabbed her by the leg, dragged her into the lounge room, kicked her two or three times and told her that you were going to stomp her head in. You laid down on the ground beside her. You wrapped your legs around her hips and legs, your arms around her body and grabbed her neck with one of the hands, squeezing with force, causing her difficulty to breath. She thought she was going to pass out but you did let go before she lost consciousness. You then grabbed her neck with one hand and used your other hand to cover her mouth and nose, squeezing her neck, again restricting her breathing. There are two counts of strangulation as a result. They are in quick succession with each other and in the course of the one transaction.

   There were other threats that you had made. I am not going to dignify them by repeating them, quite frankly. She suffered some injuries; fortunately, they are not as serious as is sometimes seen in these matters, but she was admitted to hospital overnight, where tests were done. She has indicated that she was understandably scared. She had problems eating subsequent to the event and she does not want to see you again, which I think is quite a reasonable reaction to all of this.

   I have referred to your criminal history. I make it clear I am not resentencing you for what you did previously. You have been sentenced for that. What it does is give a context to the current offending, and there is context in this. It is an unfortunately longer criminal history. It contains, I am told, 11 counts of breach of domestic violence orders in total, dating back to 2009, although it seems a number of them  were in relation to your mother rather than a lover. You were on bail, however, for contravention of a domestic violence order at the time these matters before me occurred, and you were also on probation for a contravention of a domestic violence order. This is not a one-off aberration and that makes it the more serious.

   …

   I will be quite frank, my initial reaction is that a head sentence here today of three years is warranted, but because of the matters in your favour I will impose two and a half years. It will be effectively backdated to the 4th of August, which means your overall period of two and a-half years would expire on the 3rd of February of 2025, a  matter of weeks under the three-year threshold. You will be given a parole release date. Your future is in your hands when you are released on that date. It will be roughly one-third of the overall period since the 26th of February of this year.

   …

   With your history, it is clearly both necessary and desirable that a protection order be made and, in that regard, I order  that a protection order in terms of the draft, which was provided during the course of the Prosecutor’s submissions, be made. It will be in force to and including the 16th of December of 2027. She does not want anything to do with you. The quickest way to go back to jail is to breach yet another of the protection orders that have been issued against you, being this one…

   Other criminal offending

4. As observed by the sentencing judge in dealing with the index offending, Mr Verrill has a long criminal history. It is convenient to break the offending down into separate categories. 

   Violent offending

5. Mr Verrill has been convicted of eight crimes involving assaults:

DATE	OFFENCE[19]	REF.	PENALTY
06.03.92	Assault Police, Resist Police[20]	G4/T41; TB3/T236	Convicted and fined
21.04.92	Aggravated Assault on female	G4/T41	Convicted and recognisance to be of good behaviour for 12 months
23.07.09	Assault or obstruct police officer	G4/T40; TB3/T237	18 month probation
10.06.10	Serious assault – assault, resist, obstruct police[21]	G4/T40; TB3/T237	Convicted, 2 months imprisonment
09.01.17	Assault or obstruct police officer in public place while adversely affected by intoxicating substance – domestic violence[22]	G4/T39; TB3/T239	Convicted. 40 hours community service
29.03.19	Serious assault person over 60[23]	G4/T38; TB3/T239	16 months imprisonment (concurrent with all other charges)

[19] As described in criminal antecedent report G4.

[20] Also convicted for wilful and unlawful destruction of property and obscene language.

[21] Also convicted for commit public nuisance.

[22] Also convicted for wilful damage to property, contravention of release conditions. In relation to the latter, a sentence of three months imprisonment was suspended, but the suspended sentence was fully invoked on 25 July 2017 when Mr Verrill was convicted for contravening a domestic violence order.

[23] Also convicted for Contravention of Police notice, obstruct Police officer, wilful damage.

1. Further information is before the tribunal concerning the events leading to the conviction of 10 June 2010.[24] In summary, Police had located Mr Verrill at a rail station in response to a report that a person had been assaulted. Mr Verrill was found to have injuries to his face and ankle. When police attempted to speak with him he became abusive. Mr Verrill also became aggressive to ambulance officers.

   [24] TB3/T267 Queensland Police Service Court Brief.

2. Mr Verrill was transported to the hospital where he was abusive towards medical staff. Police left the hospital when hospital security staff attended to assist, but police were later called back. Mr Verrill was observed to be yelling obscenities and verbally abused the police leading to his arrest for committing a public nuisance. When attempting to place Mr Verrill in handcuffs, Mr Verrill attempted to bite the officers and deliberately spat blood in their direction. Mr Verrill’s head was restrained, but he kicked a female police officer in the abdomen causing injury.

3. Further information is before the tribunal concerning the events leading to the conviction of 9 January 2017.[25]

   [25] TB3, T267, Queensland Police Service Court Brief.

4. Police had detained Mr Verrill in relation to a domestic violence matter. Mr Verrill had attempted to pull away and had dropped his legs causing his full body weight to fall to the ground, had then stiffened his legs to cause difficulty to move him towards a police vehicle, and had then resisted police requests for him to enter the vehicle. Mr Verrill had also spat in the direction of police while in a holding cell causing a large volume of spit to slide down the inside of the cell door. Mr Verrill had abused Police throughout.

5. Further information is before the tribunal concerning the conviction of 29 March 2019. The victim of the assault was Mr Verrill’s 74 year-old mother. She had contacted police stating that Mr Verrill had threatened to kill her and was trying to force his way into the dwelling. Mr Verrill was located by police in the possession of a large metal bar in an agitated and drug affected state.

6. Police entered Mr Verrill’s mother’s house and discovered several smashed windows. Mr Verrill’s mother reported that Mr Verrill had pushed her over after she had locked him outside at which point he began to smash windows. Mr Verrill’s mother had a large graze to her arm and also had a strained shoulder from being pushed to the ground.

7. An extract or proceedings in the magistrates court is available

   BENCH: All right. Well, you pleaded guilty. I’ve taken that into account and reduce the penalty I would have otherwise imposed had you pleaded not guilty and had your mum have to come in and give evidence against you and me watch body camera footage of you being capsicum sprayed, so I do give you credit for that. I’ve  taken into account your history. You’ve done this before, going in, smashing up your house while you’re drunk. So a lot of this, as you say, is when you’re drunk, you become a bit of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde sort of a person. This is your own 74- year-old mother who’s terrified of you and it’s really, really sad. You’re 47 years of age. I’ve taken into account your previous work history. You’ve got kids. Seems  you’re reconnecting with some of those kids. …

8. Mr Verrill was sentenced to 16 months and put a domestic violence order in place prohibiting Mr Verrill from entering onto Russell Island (where his mother resided). Mr Verrill breached that order in less than a month.[26]

   Breach of family violence orders

   [26] TB3, T319.

9. The judge identified 11 counts of breaching domestic violence orders in total dating back to 2009.

10. In relation to convictions, Mr Verrill’s criminal antecedent report records convictions for breaching a domestic violence protection orders on 19 January 2009, 3 March 2011, 9 May 2013, 9 January 2017 (contravention of release conditions), 25 July 2017, 29 March 2019, 8 April 2019, 21 February 2021 (multiple counts), and 3 August 2022 (multiple counts). Some of these convictions were dealt with at the same time as other offending arising out of the same incident and already summarised above.

11. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 19 January 2009.[27] The facts alleged in that matter pertain to Mr Verrill’s then partner. He had been made subject to a Protection Order on 11 June 2008, the details of which were that Mr Verrill must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and her children.[28] There is no information regarding the incident or incidents that led to the Protection Order being made.

    [27] TB3, T256.

    [28] TB3, T251.

12. On 8 December 2008, police attended a disturbance which involved the protected person and her children being subject to a verbal tirade containing racial slurs. Upon the arrival of police, Mr Verrill decamped over the back fence, but later attended the police station where he was abusive towards police. At a later interview, Mr Verrill had said he had no recollection of the events due to his intoxication levels.

13. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 3 March 2011. The court had made a domestic violence order protecting his mother from him on 22 September 2010, requiring that Mr Verrill be of good behaviour towards her and to not commit domestic violence.

14. On 17 January 2011, Mr Verrill, his mother and brother were at home drinking and all were intoxicated. When Mr Verrill was told there was no beer left he became enraged and tipped the dining table over causing his mother to fall, with the table landing on top of her. Mr Verrill then proceeded to smash every window in the house and damaged furniture. When police arrived, Mr Verrill’s mother was down the street waiting for an ambulance. Mr Verrill approached police and surrendered himself.

15. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 9 May 2013[29]. As mentioned above the court had made a domestic violence order protecting his mother from him on 22 September 2010, requiring that Mr Verrill be of good behaviour towards her and not commit domestic violence. That order was varied on 3 March 2011 requiring Mr Verrill not to go within 100 meters of premises where his mother resides.

    [29] TB3, T282.

16. Although the circumstances are somewhat unclear due to the redactions applied to the Court Brief document, it appears that Mr Verrill breached that order by being at his mother’s residence before leaving to attend licensed premises. Mr Verrill was arrested for the offence after being discharged from hospital where he had been transported for facial injuries arising out of another incident that is not further detailed.

17. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 9 January 2017 for contravention of release conditions. The conditions[30] required Mr Verrill to be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved person, not approach the aggrieved place of residence and prohibited Mr Verrill from contacting the aggrieved. The identity of the aggrieved person has been redacted. In his evidence, Mr Verrill believed the aggrieved person to have been Ms S, a former partner.

    [30] TB3, T252.

18. The circumstances of the police attendance resulted in Mr Verrill’s convictions for Assault or obstruct police officer in public place whole adversely affected by intoxicating substance – domestic violence described above at [47.  The aggrieved person alleged that Mr Verrill had grabbed her around the throat and she was terrified of him, but subsequently retracted that statement. I note Mr Verrill was not charged or convicted of any assaults against the aggrieved person, and the evidence in the Court Brief document is too slight to justify a finding of that nature in the absence of a conviction.

19. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 25 July 2017.[31] Mr Verrill was prohibited from remaining at, entering or attempting to enter or approaching within 50 meters of the aggrieved’s usual place of residence by a protection order of 4 April 2017. The aggrieved (redacted) contacted police when Mr Verrill turned up uninvited wanting “to have a cuddle”. He gained entry to the premises before being asked to leave. The aggrieved offered to cuddle Mr Verrill outside but when he went outside she locked him out and called police. Mr Verrill was unable to be interviewed on that occasion due to his level of intoxication.

    [31] TB3, T299.

20. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 29 March 2019, which pertains to events of 28 November 2018[32]. There were two aggrieved parties in relation to this incident, Mr Verrill’s brother and mother. Mr Verrill was subject to a police protection notice requiring him to be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved, and prohibiting him from approaching within 100 meters of premises. I note this reference pertains to the incident dealt with by the Magistrate in the course of sentencing remarks extracted in part above at [50].

    [32] TB3, T307.

21. Mr Verrill’s mother contacted police on 28 November 2018 requesting assistance because Mr Verrill was violent and intoxicated and making threats to kill her. She had locked herself inside her dwelling and Mr Verrill was trying to force entry. Mr Verrill’s brother contacted police saying that Mr Verrill was attempting to gain entry and was threatening to bash him up. The door to the dwelling had been barricaded with tables and chairs. 

22. Mr Verrill was located by police outside the premises holding a large steel bar which he refused to drop. OC spray was deployed by Police and Mr Verrill was arrested. 

23. Police observed several windows to be smashed, and Mr Verrill’s mother had a cut on her arm, and stated Mr Verrill had pushed her over causing the injury.

24. Further information is available to the Tribunal in relation to the conviction of 8 April 2019[33]. Mr Verrill was prohibited from entering onto Russell Island (where his mother resided) by a protection order issued by the Court. On 7 April 2019, Mr Verrill was observed to be disembarking from the ferry and to get into a taxi on Russell Island. Police subsequently located Mr Verrill underneath his mother’s house. Mr Verrill was too intoxicated to be questioned.

    [33] TB3, T320.

25. Further information is available regarding the convictions imposed on 21 February 2021.[34] While subject to a protection order prohibiting him from approaching within 100 meters of his mother’s place of residence, Mr Verrill was located by Police hiding in a wardrobe. Police had been called by the ambulance service who were treating an aggrieved person (which I infer to be Mr Verrill‘s brother) who had cuts and contusions on his body.

    [34] TB3, T336.

26. Further information is available regarding the convictions imposed on 3 August 2022.[35] On 6 January 2022 Mr Verrill had attended his mother’s house while heavily intoxicated, while subject to a protection order prohibiting him from approaching within 100m of her residence and also prohibiting him from setting foot on Russell Island. Mr Verrill had taken his bicycle and also his mother’s mobile phone, which she was able to take back off him. Mr Verrill’s mother had told police that Mr Verrill remained on the island and she was fearful that he would return to her address during the night. Mr Verrill was arrested at a shopping centre.

    
    
    

    Offences involving property and property damage.

    [35] TB3, T344.

27. Mr Verrill has the following offences detailed in his antecedent report involving property damage:

DATE	OFFENCE[36]	REF.	PENALTY
11.6.91	Wilful and unlawful destruction of property	G4/T41	Probation and community service
06.03.92	Wilful and unlawful destruction of property (assoc. with assault police charge detailed above)	G4/T41	Convicted, fined
09.01.17	Wilful damage to property without consent	G4/T39	Convicted fined
29.03.19	Wilful damage (assoc. with assault person over 60 charge detailed above)	G4/T38	Convicted – concurrent sentence of imprisonment 6 months

[36] As described in criminal antecedent report G4.

1. The offending of 9 January 2017 pertained to damage of a police Perspex window and is associated with the conduct described at [46] above. The offending pertaining to the conviction of 29 March 2019 is associated with the conduct described at [47]-[50] above.

   Driving offences

2. Mr Verrill was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and dangerous driving while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance namely alcohol on 15 November 1996 for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended. I note that further information about that incident is at TB3 page 406.

1. Mr Verrill had been at a party and had grabbed the owner’s keys and placed his mother in the boot of the vehicle. Both Mr Verrill and his brother had driven their mother to her address before throwing her out of the boot. I note this incident was raised with Mr Verrill in the previous proceedings and Mr Verrill took objection to the term ‘throw’. Mr Verrill explained that his mother had been drunk and violent and he was taking her home. I note Mr Verrill was neither charge nor convicted with any offences against his mother on this occasion.[37]

   [37] Exhibit 5, page 52 (transcript).

2. Records from the Department of Transport and Main Roads (Queensland) also show that Mr Verrill has a very poor record in relation to traffic and driving offending, including multiple instances of driving with unrestrained children, speeding, and drink driving. 

3. The  Direction provides for certain identified conduct to be considered very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community. Most aspects of Mr Verrill’s conduct falls very squarely and centrally within the nature and seriousness of conduct which is to be viewed very seriously. Mr Verrill’s offending is violent, it is directed against women, and is of the nature of family violence. 

4. Some of Mr Verrill’s crimes meet the definition of crimes and conduct considered to be serious as provided for by cl.8.1.1(1)(b). Although Mr Verrill’s assaults against his mother are already viewed as very serious under the Direction because they are violent crimes against a female and also acts of family violence, the Direction further recognises that crimes of this nature are serious because they are committed against an elderly member of the community, appropriately recognised to be vulnerable. Similarly, Mr Verrill has convictions for assaulting police, including a female police officer who he spat blood at and kicked in the abdomen.

5. I am to take into account the sentence imposed by the courts for Mr Verrill’s crimes, with the (relevant) exception of violent crimes, crimes against women and acts of family violence which are to be viewed as very serious in any event. In this regard, I note Verrill has been convicted of other crime, and driving offences, although he has not had any custodial sentences imposed in respect of them. I take that into account.

6. I am to take into account the impact of the offending or other conduct on any of the victims, where information in this regard is available and Mr Verrill has been afforded procedural fairness.

7. In relation to the index offending, I have no further information available to me about the impact of the offending other than that which is referred to in the sentencing remarks which have been extracted above, and some additional detail associated with the course of the offending. The details of Mr Verrill’s assault on the victim are quite horrific, and I can readily infer that the impact of the offending on her was grave. His Honour declined to dignify threats Mr Verrill made to his victim by repeating them, but I will have regard to them as the details are available in the material before me, and they are relevant to the impact on the victim. In the course of the violent assault, I note Mr Verrill threatened to kill her pets. The sentencing judge observed that the victim has had problems eating after the event, and obviously did not want to see Mr Verrill again.

8. I further note that in the course of being asked about the wider circumstances of the index offending in the previous proceedings, Mr Verrill was emphatic that he accepted all the facts alleged pertaining to the incident.[38]

   [38] Exhibit 5, page 67.

9. In relation to other offending, I note that the sentencing magistrate on 29 March 2019 (in relation to one of the assaults Mr Verrill perpetrated on his elderly mother) observed that his own mother was terrified of him, and it was ‘really, really sad’.

10. I note that in relation to other offending, Mr Verrill’s brother was an aggrieved person in respect of a breach of a family violence order. I understand that Mr Verrill’s brother lived with Mr Verrill’s mother. I have no specific information available about the impact of Mr Verrill’s offending on his brother, and I understand Mr Verrill’s brother has passed away.

11. As to the frequency of Mr Verrill’s offending, I note that Mr Verrill’s criminal antecedent report is extensive and consists of violent offending and flagrant breaches of measures directed towards protecting vulnerable victims such as his elderly mother. The Respondent contends that it can be seen that the frequency and seriousness of Mr Verrill’s offending has increased over time, and I accept that this submission is borne out by a thorough examination of the criminal antecedent report. I note that there is a significant hiatus in convictions for violent offending between 1992 and 2009, but since 2009 Mr Verrill has been a very regular defendant in the Magistrates Court in relation to violence and breach of domestic violence orders. It is curious to observe that Mr Verrill’s criminal conduct has intensified as he approached and entered middle age.

12. I am to take into account the cumulative effect of repeated offending. Mr Verrill’s criminal history since 2009 discloses a significant burden on the criminal justice system and thereby the community, in addition to the burden imposed on his victims such as his elderly mother. This burden is further underscored by an examination of the police records available to me showing that Mr Verrill’s unmitigated recidivist conduct and disregard for police and court orders has presented a considerable burden on police and court resources over time. I am to take into account the cumulative effect of repeated offending in considering the nature and seriousness of Mr Verrill’s conduct, and in that regard I consider Mr Verrill’s repeated offending and the increasing seriousness of his offending adds to the seriousness of his conduct, which I already view as very serious indeed.

13. Mr Verrill has not left Australia since his arrival as an infant, and so there is no evidence that he has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.

14. As to whether Mr Verrill has reoffended since being formally warned, there is no formal written warning per se. However, in the course of the proceedings, I enquired as to why Mr Verrill’s conviction for assault and other offences on 29 March 2019, for which he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, had not resulted in the automatic cancellation of his visa. I note that the sentencing magistrate released Mr Verrill on parole from the sentencing hearing, although that parole was subsequently revoked. I had further observed that the Tribunal papers contained correspondence to Mr Verrill dated 27 March 2020 (predating the date of the index offending) informing him of an intention to consider cancelling his visa under subsection 501(2) of the Migration Act, by reference to the judgment and verdict of 29 March 2019.

15. Mr Verrill said that he was in prison when he received that notice. Documentary evidence records that Mr Verrill’s court ordered parole imposed on 29 March 2019 was suspended on 4 February 2020 because he was not complying with parole conditions[39]. Mr Verrill said that at this time the Covid-19 pandemic was impacting. He had understood himself to be an Australian citizen and had made certain representations and enquiries in that regard with the Department, which I note was likely to also be impacted by the emerging pandemic at the time. No response was received to his enquires, and the intention to cancel his visa did not proceed to any further action by the Department at that time. Mr Verrill explained that when he was then released from prison, it reenforced his view that he was an Australian citizen.

    [39] TB5, page 444.

16. Counsel for the Respondent undertook enquiries to clarify what had become of this process. It was submitted that at the time there was some doubt around Mr Verrill’s immigration status, so proceeded with the process engaging subsection 501(2) of the Act. Also, a new Direction was issued (Direction 90) requiring re-notification of people the subject of consideration for visa cancellation, but the letter sent to Mr Verrill in that regard had been returned to the Department uncollected. While the Department was pursuing that process (which was indeed during the Covid-19 pandemic), Mr Verrill committed and was convicted for the index offence, which then proceeded by way of automatic visa cancellation. No decision was made about the process that had commenced on 27 March 2020, but the process is marked as complete in the Department’s records.

17. Essentially, it appears that the process commenced by the letter of 27 March 2020 encountered a number of legal uncertainties and administrative difficulties and had essentially lapsed before being overtaken by the events of Mr Verrill’s index offending and conviction, which was more serious and attracted a significant term of imprisonment and resulted in the automatic cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the Act.

18. The question arises as to whether the commencement of the 27 March 2020 process in itself served as a form of formal warning about the consequences of further offending in terms of Mr Verrill’s migration status within the meaning of cl.8.1.1(h) of the Direction. The Respondent contends that it should be viewed as a formal warning. While I accept that the communication and Mr Verrill’s initial engagement with that process ought to have put Mr Verrill squarely on notice about the possible consequences on his migration status of further offending, prior to him committing the index offending, I also accept that Mr Verrill might reasonably have interpreted the events as confirming his belief that he was an Australian citizen. On balance, I have not placed any adverse weight on the existence of the lapsed process as a form of formal warning to Mr Verrill. For the purposes of cl.8.1.1(h) of the Direction. I note that the Direction however makes it clear that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in Mr Verrill’s favour.

    Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

19. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should Mr Verrill commit further offences. Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction No 110 states, in part:[40]

    (1)In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

    (2)In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

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

    b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

    i.       information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and

    ii.      evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). …

    [40] See also Direction No 110 para 8.1(2)(b).

20. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[41] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[42]

    [41] Direction No 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).

    [42] Direction No 110 para 8.1.2(2)(b).

21. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[43]

    [43] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, at [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, at [41] per Kenny J.

    Nature of the harm

22. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[44]

    [44] Direction No 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).

23. The nature of the harm that would be caused to the Australian community if Mr Verrill were to reoffend is very serious indeed. It is only necessary to review the sentencing remarks of the circumstances of the index offence on a victim that Mr Verrill had only known for a short time to recognise the gravity of harm to the Australian community should Mr Verrill reoffend in a similar way.

24. Similarly, Mr Verrill’s crowded criminal antecedent report showing instances of assault, antisocial behaviour, domestic violence perpetrated on other victims including his elderly mother demonstrates the very serious nature of the harm that may be inflicted on the Australian community should Mr Verrill reoffend in any similar way. Any future offending of a similar nature would have the potential to cause serious physical injury, or worse, and psychological injury to any victim.

25. I consider that harm of this nature is so serious that any risk the conduct leading to that harm may be repeated is unacceptable.

    Likelihood of engaging in further or other serious conduct

26. I am to consider the likelihood of Mr Verrill engaging in further criminal conduct, taking into account information and evidence on the risk of him reoffending, and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of my decision. I am mindful that it is a key pillar of Mr Verrill’s case before the Tribunal that he has significantly reduced the risk to the community as a result of rehabilitative and psychological work, and seeking out protective factors.

27. I have considered this question by reference to Mr Verrill’s criminal history to date including his compliance with court interventions, the observations of the sentencing courts as to the likelihood of Mr Verrill reoffending, whether there is any expert opinion available addressing criminogenic factors, Mr Verrill’s evidence regarding criminogenic factors and attempts he has made to address them, and all other evidence of rehabilitative courses, psychological treatment or personal improvement courses embarked upon by Mr Verrill.

    Mr Verrill’s criminal history to date

28. I am entitled to speculate as to what might happen in the future by reference to evidence of what has happened in the past.[45] Mr Verrill’s criminal history since 2009 is essentially appalling, and it is unnecessary to again traverse the extent to which Mr Verrill has appeared before the courts charged with violent offending and breaches of domestic violence orders. When considered as an historical feature of the evidence relevant to the likelihood of future offending there is nothing in Mr Verrill’s criminal antecedents that gives rise to optimism that the likelihood of him reoffending is low. 

    [45] Muggeridge v Minister Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200 at [36].

29. I accept however that such an historical analysis of itself is insufficient. As Mr Verrill has pointed out, all of his offending involved him being under the influence of intoxicating substance, usually alcohol, and this is well documented in the records regarding police attendances. Mr Verrill has explained that during the period of his incarceration he has abstained from alcohol. A key issue in assessing the likelihood of Mr Verrill reoffending is to assess the extent to which Mr Verrill will be able to abstain from alcohol in particular on a durable basis. It is submitted by Mr Verrill that the likelihood of such a risk (of reoffending) crystalising is lower than at any point of time since he started offending.

    Observations of sentencing courts

30. I note that on 29 March 2019, the sentencing magistrate suggested that Mr Verrill try Alcoholics Anonymous and pharmacological intervention. There is no evidence that either of those suggestions were adopted at that time, prior to the index offending.

31. On 16 December 2022, in relation to the index offending, the sentencing judge made no specific observations addressing the prospects of rehabilitation or the likelihood of reoffending. Having regard to the Judge’s remarks regarding the extent of Mr Verrill’s criminal history, the fact that Mr Verrill was on bail for contravention of domestic violence orders when the offence was committed and the remarks made by the Judge recognising that Mr Verrill’s offending was not a one-off aberration and his criminal history providing the context for the instant offence, it is fair to say that there is nothing in the remarks of the sentencing judge in relation to the index offending that can be construed as positive in relation to the prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of offending being repeated.

32. Much will therefore turn on what has happened since Mr Verrill’s conviction for the index offence.

    Responses to court ordered supervision, bail conditions, community service and undertakings to appear

33. Mr Verrill’s criminal antecedent report reveals that Mr Verrill over time has responded very poorly to court ordered supervision such as probation[46], has failed to comply with undertakings given to the court to appear[47], has breached community service orders on multiple occasions[48] and has engaged in conduct resulting in revocation of parole and the invocation of suspended sentences.[49] It appears that Mr Verrill has responded poorly historically to the court imposing alternative penalties directed towards rehabilitation.

    Evidence of any expert opinion

    [46] For example see 3 August 2022, 17 March 2011, 26 November 2009.

    [47] For example see 3 August 2022, 21 February 2021.

    [48] For example see 21 February 2021, and 7 September 2017.

    [49] For example 25 July 2017 and 9 May 2013.

34. I have reviewed the documentary evidence in the proceedings for material that may provide expert opinion addressing criminogenic factors and whether they can or have been addressed.

35. The Tribunal papers contain records from Queensland Corrective Services[50]described as ‘benchmark assessments’. One is marked as being created on 16 May 2013 and the other is marked as created on 15 November 2017. Both documents contain text assessing Mr Verrill as at a high risk in relation to domestic violence perpetration. Given the historical nature of the documents and the assessment of high risk merely serves as a premonition of what is now known to have actually happened, the documents are of limited assistance, other than to establish that previous instances of incarceration did not serve to ameliorate risk or prevent repeat conduct. There is insufficient information about the authors, qualifications and process behind the creation of these records to attribute to them the status of an expert opinion.

    [50] TB5, T448.

36. Mr Verrill had overlooked lodging a copy of a psychologist’s assessment with the material he had obtained from the detention centre’s medical services provider. The Respondent tendered the document and asked Mr Verrill questions in respect of it. The report, of Mr Greg Hutcheon. Dated 14 October 2024 is Exhibit 5A.

37. The report documents that Mr Verrill consulted Mr Hutcheon for six sessions between 5 August 2024 and 14 October 2024. The preamble to the report describes Mr Hutcheon’s role as a treating psychologist, with Mr Verrill referred to him for the assessment and treatment of adjustment difficulties in the context of prolonged incarceration, relapse prevention from substance abuse issues and to help Mr Verrill explore his history and pattern of interpersonal relationships. Although I have found the report informative, I am conscious that it is not a report necessarily directed towards informing me of Mr Verrill’s criminogenic issues or expressing an opinion as to the likelihood of reoffending per se.

1. The report traverses Mr Verrill’s personal history, to which I have had regard, describing issues with alcoholism, periods of stable relationships and employment, but increasingly more problematic substance use. The report documents that Mr Verrill remains in contact with his eldest children and wishes to rebuild his relationship with his daughters.

2. The report documented that Mr Verrill had reported that he had not engaged in meaningful long-term psychotherapy and wished to develop insight into contributors [which by inference I understand to refer to his offending and patterns of substance use] and to develop better mechanisms in service of relapse-prevention.

3. The report recognised that Mr Verrill, through his therapy, was able to identify how different thought patterns had impacted him, and that aggression and violence were related to a variety of factors related to low mood, deterioration of self-worth and esteem and increased substance use.

4. The report concludes by encouraging Mr Verrill to continue to develop insights into his tendencies, and observes he will benefit from engaging in longer-term psychotherapy. The report observes Mr Verrill has engaged in multiple drug and alcohol programs and recognises the need to continue. The report states Mr Verrill engaged well in therapy and demonstrated considerable gains in processing and understanding his past, and was highly motivated to remain in Australia as a positive role-model to his children.

5. I have taken into account the matters addressed in the report, and recognise that Mr Verrill’s positive engagement with the therapy he has accessed reflects well on him. Indeed, the reference by the psychologist to Mr Verrill’s high level of motivation towards staying in Australia was an observation that I have also made by reference to the extensive online courses Mr Verrill has embarked upon by way of improving himself and attempting to demonstrate rehabilitation and his representations during the hearing. 

6. These matters count in Mr Verrill’s favour and introduce new matters to reflect upon in relation to the likelihood of Mr Verrill committing similar offending in the future given his criminal history presents an essentially pessimistic picture. However, the report confirms that Mr Verrill has not accessed long term therapy previously. Furthermore, the gains he has made have occurred in the controlled environment of incarceration and immigration detention. Mr Hutcheson does not purport to express an opinion as to the likelihood of Mr Verrill reoffending, although does identify measures which, if followed, will assist Mr Verrill avoid substance abuse, aggression and violence.

   Rehabilitative and other courses

7. Mr Verrill has provided documentary evidence that he has completed the following online courses:

DATE	COURSE	REF.	NOTES
16 April 2023	Anger Management 101	T152	5 contact hours
14 May 2023	Domestic Violence 101	T154	8 contact hours
4 April 2023	Drug and Alcohol Abuse 101	T155	7 contact hours
8 May 2023	Understanding Addictions	T156	10 contact hours
23 June 2023	Emotional Intelligence	Exhibit 6, page 42	5 contact hours
26 June 2023	Critical Thinking	Exhibit 6, T 48	5 contact hours
1 July 2023	Personality Development	Exhibit 6, page 54	7 contact hours
20 July 2023	Building Self Esteem	Exhibit 6, page 38	3 contact hours
20 July 2023	Stress Management	Exhibit 6, page 45	4 contact hours
25 July 2023	Healthy Relationships	Exhibit 6, page 52	7 contact hours
29 July 2023	Effective Communication Skills	Exhibit 6, page 51	7 contact hours
11 August 2023	How to be Your Own Life Coach	Exhibit 6, page 43	7 contact hours
16 August 2023	Developing Great Social Skills	Exhibit 6, page 40	5 contact hours
22 November 2023	Wellness Coaching	Exhibit 6, page 56	11 contact hours
22 November 2023	Weigh Training 101	Exhibit 6, page 46	14 contact hours
29 November 2023	Life Coaching 101	Exhibit 6, page 44	15 contact hours
3 December 2023	Bartending and Mixology	Exhibit 6, page 47	3 contact hours
5 December 2023	Customer Relationship Management	Exhibit 6, page 39	9 contact hours
10 December 2023	Human Resources Management	Exhibit 6, page 53	8 contact hours
16 December 2023	Customer Service 101	Exhibit 6, page 49	15 contact hours
2023/2024	Anger Management:  A Guide to Emotional Regulation and Conflict Resolution	Exhibit 6, page 2
2023/2024	Anger Management and Conflict Resolution	Exhibit 6, page 3
2023/2024	Mindfulness for Anger Management	Exhibit 6, page 4
2023/2024	Introduction to Drug and Alcohol Awareness	Exhibit 6, page 5
2023/2024	Drugs and Alcohol – Awareness and Prevention	Exhibit 6, page 6
2023/2024	Introduction to Cognitive Therapy	Exhibit 6, page 7
2023/2024	Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Anxiety	Exhibit 6 page 8
2023/2024	Diploma and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy	Exhibit 6 page 9
2023/2024	Abuse Awareness and Response Training	Exhibit 6, page 10
2023/2024	How to deal with Intimate Partner Violence	Exhibit 6, page 11
2023/2024	Fundamentals of Domestic Violence and Abuse	Exhibit 6, page 12
2023/2024	(Various Hospitality-related programs, Spanish for beginners)
12 November 2024	Community and Family Support Service Program	Exhibit 6, page 17

1. Mr Verrill explained that some of the courses required a fee to be paid in order to receive a certificate of completion and he was not in a position to pay the fee. The certificates are marked as ‘samples’ and there is no date of completion marked. I accept Mr Verrill’s evidence that he in fact completed the course content notwithstanding the certificates are marked as samples.

2. In his written submissions, Mr Verrill further identified that he had engaged with one on one counselling with a counsellor ’Darryll’ provided through the medical services available to him in immigration detention. He indicated he has participated in weekly teleconferences with a peer support worker at ‘Sane’ and indicated he has participated in re-integration lessons. Mr Verrill indicated he has undergone CBT reprogramming applying an identified curriculum ‘Overcoming Intrusive Thoughts’, and read the self-help book ‘Quit Drinking Without Will Power’ by Allan Carr. Mr Verrill has also indicated he has participated in Respectful Man Zoom chat sessions and Drug Arm telephone counselling.

3. From the content of the various online courses, I accept that by completing the courses Mr Verrill has taken steps to recognise and address aspects of his offending behaviour, and has furthermore undertaken activities directed generally towards self-improvement. I place favourable weight on Mr Verrill’s activities in this regard, recognising that he has demonstrated his motivation to address his offending behaviour in this way.

4. Mr Verrill has also provided documentation demonstrating his preparation of his own Relapse Prevention Plan and Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment Plan,[51]which I have read with care and note tends to demonstrate Mr Verrill obtained significant benefit from his participation in the online and other courses directed towards these objectives.

   [51] TB G23, page 165.

5. In relation to the Community and Family Support Service Program, further correspondence from the Program Coordinator[52] indicates that Mr Verrill participated in 10 counselling sessions and had engaged with the course content. Mr Verrill was self-motivated in making contact with the program. I note the course was concerned with addressing drug and alcohol use.

   [52] Exhibit 6 page 18.

6. Mr Verrill has also participated successfully in a ‘SMART Recovery’[53] and ‘Circuit Breaker’[54] course delivered in immigration detention, submitting attendance records, examples of course work and course curriculum material into the documentary evidence before the Tribunal which I have read with clear. It is clear that these rehabilitative courses were directed towards addressing aspects of Mr Verrill’s offending behaviour, and I am satisfied that Mr Verrill engaged with the course content.

   [53] Exhibit 6, page 24.

   [54] Exhibit 6, page 57.

7. During the hearing, Mr Verrill also outlined his plans for future counselling and rehabilitation, including making preliminary enquiries with service providers.

   Conduct in prison

8. Queensland Corrective Services records also describe three potentially adverse behavioural incidents arising during Mr Verrill’s periods of incarceration. The first[55] pertains to the interception of a suboxone parcel delivered through ordinary mail addressed to Mr Verrill in prison. Mr Verrill denied having arranged for suboxone to be mailed to him and said no disciplinary action was taken by prison authorities. I consider there are many factual scenarios that may play out in a prison context inconsistent with Mr Verrill’s involvement in the movement of the suboxone parcel in the mail, including the interception of the parcel by other inmates before it reached Mr Verrill, or the ‘standing over’ of Mr Verrill by other inmates if the parcel was ultimately delivered to him. It is unsafe in my view to draw any adverse inference from the records relating to these circumstances, particularly as prison authorities appear to have taken no action against Mr Verrill.

   [55] TB5, page 470.

9. Another incident pertains to prisoner on prisoner violence[56]between Mr Verrill and his cellmate. In addressing the material, Mr Verrill said it was a situation where he had needed to defend himself. The records suggest the incident was not viewed as a significant one by prison authorities, concluding that facial injuries sustained would not amount to wounding, and neither prisoner made a complaint. The paperwork identifies Mr Verrill as the perpetrator and his cellmate as the victim, but in the absence of any particulars as to why the incident was recorded in this way I place no weight on that.  Ultimately, I consider I am insufficiently informed about the circumstances of this incident in prison to treat it as adverse in itself for the purpose of assessing the likelihood of Mr Verrill reoffending.

   [56] TB5, page 473.

10. Finally, a third incident involves the detection of a tablet and ‘brew’ in a cell shared by Mr Verrill and another prisoner. This incident pre-dates the index offending. Both prisoners denied ownership of the contraband, which was disposed of without the prison authorities being in a position to take further action. Likewise, I cannot be satisfied that the detection of these clandestine items pertain to Mr Verrill’s conduct in prison or relationship with alcohol while in prison, particularly as it predates the index offending and Mr Verrill’s recent work to address factors such as substance abuse.

    References

11. A number of written references relied on by Mr Verrill address issues regarding remorse and observed changes in Mr Verrill’s commitment to rehabilitation.

12. I have had regard to the reference of Mr Alfred Davis, [57] Mr Conway Burns,[58]  Mr Daniel Cann,[59] Mr David and Ms Karen Elder[60], Mr Zac Verrill[61], Mr Corey Verrill[62], Ms Janice Verrill[63], and Ms Nichole Cross[64].

    [57] G26 and Exhibit 8, page 528.

    [58] G27 and Exhibit 8.

    [59] G28, page 182.

    [60] G29, page 184.

    [61] G30, page 185 and Exhibit 8, page 535.

    [62] G31, page 186 and Exhibit 8, page 530.

    [63] Exhibit 8, page 531.

    [64] Exhibit 8, page 532.

13. Mr Davis provides insights into Mr Verrill’s childhood and relationship with his mother, explaining that he has known Mr Verrill for over 40 years. The statement points out Mr Verrill’s good qualities, but concedes he has not had a lot of contact with Mr Verrill during the previous 15 years. Mr Davis says that he is aware that Mr Verrill has been reflective of the seriousness of his situation, and spoken repeatedly about his remorse and the need to repair relationships. Mr Davis also gave evidence in the previous proceedings and I have had regard to his testimony.[65]

    [65] Exhibit 5, page 49.

14. Similarly, Mr Burns states that Mr Verrill has taken steps to improve outlook and responsibilities to his children.

15. Mr Cann also states that he has known Mr Verrill for an extensive period of time, and his belief that Mr Verrill genuinely wants to build a life where he can contribute.

16. Mr and Mrs Elder also provided a personal reference for Mr Verrill arising out of a previous employment relationship. They say they found Mr Verrill to be professional, calm and friendly during his employment between 2000 and 2004.  In this regard, I note that Mr and Mrs Elder to not mention any awareness of the nature of Mr Verrill’s subsequent offending.

17. Mr Zachery Verrill is Mr Verrill’s adult son. In addition to confirming that he has work available for his father in his roofing business, Mr Zachery Verrill states that he found his father to be a dedicated and reliable employee. Mr Zachery Verrill adds that he would be prepared to accommodate Mr Verrill on his release and support his ongoing personal development. Mr Zachery Verrill states he has witnessed a profound change in his father who has wholeheartedly engaged in his rehabilitation and personal growth.

18. Mr Corey Verrill is Mr Verrill’s other adult son, who also states he has an offer of employment for his father at the hotel he operates in rural Queensland. Mr Corey Verrill states Mr Verrill would thrive in the small community and could leave his previous life behind.

19. A statement is before the Tribunal purporting to be from Ms Janice Verrill, Mr Verrill’s mother. As can be seen from the analysis set out above, Ms Verrill is the victim of much of Mr Verrill’s offending. Mr Verrill conceded that he remains subject to a domestic violence order prohibiting him from, among other things, approaching within 20 meters of her.

20. The statement is typed and unsigned. Unlike other statements that were also typed and unsigned, I insisted in this instance that the statement from Ms Verrill be proved and that Ms Verrill be produced as a witness by telephone. Mr Verrill indicates he understood and would endeavour to do so, but ultimately did not do so. In relation to this statement, given the circumstances around the relationship between Mr Verrill and the purported witness, and given that I made it very clear that in relation to this particular statement Ms Verrill would be required to speak to her statement if I were to place any weight on it, I do not place any weight on the document as a statement from Ms Janice Verrill because it is unsigned and has not otherwise been proved.

21. Ms Cross states that she is the sister of Ms Morris, describing Ms Morris and Mr Verrill’s partner. In his Personal Circumstances Form,[66] Mr Verrill identified Ms Katrina “C” as his spouse or partner, explaining that they were not together but are still in a friendly relationship, then referring to her as his ex-spouse. Ms Morris and Ms “C” are two different people: Ms Morris is the mother of Mr Verrill’s sons Corey and Zachery, while Ms “C” is the mother of Mr Verrill’s daughters.

    [66] G15, page 118.

22. In any event, Ms Cross states she has always looked up to Mr Verrill, witnessed his kindness and respect for others, and he had never been violent towards her. She states that during her visits to the detention centre and in conversations by phone and video she has seen his commitment towards learning from his past and making positive changes to improve himself. She believes Mr Verrill’s experiences have been transformative.

    Mr Verrill’s expressions of remorse and commitment to rehabilitation

23. Mr Verrill has made clear and articulate expressions of remorse, acceptance of responsibility and apology to his victims. Mr Verrill has also expressed recognition that substance abuse has harmed himself but also negatively impacted others and society as a whole. I have had regard to Mr Verrill’s evidence in this regard. As mentioned above, Mr Verrill’s expressions of remorse and commitment to rehabilitation have somewhat greater force because they are supported by demonstrated engagement with relevant courses and other courses directed at self-improvement.

24. However, in relation to Mr Verrill’s expressions of commitment to continue therapy directed at reducing the risk of him reoffending, and his expressions of commitment to improving himself and restoring his relationships I must however proceed with some caution. It cannot be denied that Mr Verrill has very amply demonstrated his motivation for reform and desire to address his alcohol abuse and violent tendencies. Mr Verrill has indeed undertaken actions through his engagement with rehabilitation courses that on the face of it support his contentions. However, I am mindful that this is not the first time such representations have been made to the Department in the same vein. 

25. In responding to the notice of intention to consider cancelling his visa issued to him on 27 March 2020, Mr Verrill completed a personal circumstances form in which he made the following representations:

    Have had alcohol problem which is now not an issue after counselling and AA

    No risk of reoffending as I feel I am in better headspace and want to focus on my children  and a better life without trouble. I am only on breach for not informing parole of address within 48 hours, no new charges[67].

    [67] G15, page 124.

26. Obviously, these representations are not expressed with as much detail or articulated with the same care as the representations now before the Tribunal, but in essence they are the same. Nor were they supported by the demonstrated engagement with rehabilitative courses which is now apparent

27. Yet, Mr Verrill committed an aggravated contravention of a domestic violence restraining order within two months of making those representations, and then committed the very serious index offending less than 2 years after those representations were made. This tends to indicate that Mr Verrill’s representations as to rehabilitation and risk of reoffending cannot be relied upon. This reduces the persuasive weight of Mr Verrill’s representations regarding rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending.

28. I have considered in detail the evidence available to me relevant to the risk of Mr Verrill re-offending and the evidence available of rehabilitation achieved by the time of my decision.

29. An historical analysis of Mr Verrill’s recidivist criminal history, poor engagement with court interventions and demonstrated failure to live up to expressions of remorse and commitment to rehabilitation in the past all point to a high degree of likelihood that Mr Verrill will commit violent offences in the future, including against women. Reflecting on Mr Verrill’s oral evidence and presentation in the hearing, his demonstrated extensive engagement with rehabilitative courses and the opinions of people close to him as to observed substantive changes, I have formed the view that the risk can be reasonably considered to be reduced somewhat to what would be indicated by looking at his history alone. I consider the risk to be at least moderate in view of all the evidence. In that sense, I consider the risk is substantive and real that Mr Verrill’s efforts at rehabilitation and motivation to reform while demonstrated and genuinely held at this instant, may fail. I consider Mr Verrill represents a real risk of reoffending in the future, albeit I assess it as of moderate likelihood.

30. In relation to the protection of the community therefore, I identify a moderate but real degree of likelihood that Mr Verrill will reoffend in a way that is unacceptable, in the context of previous criminal and other behaviour that is very serious indeed. The first primary consideration of protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revoking the decision to cancel Mr Verrill’s visa in my view.

    Family violence committed by the non-citizen

31. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction No 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision. This consideration is relevant where, as in Mr Verrill’s case, a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence that involve family violence. Indeed, Mr Verrill has been convicted of multiple such offences against different victims. The consideration is also relevant where, as I shall find also applies to Mr Verrill’s case, there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen has been involved in the perpetration of family violence.

1. At the time of this decision, the law as to whether the operation of special return criterion 5001(c) amounts to a legal consequence of the decision appears to be somewhat unsettled. In this regard, I mention the decision of Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; 246 FCR 146 and more recently Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security (2 September 2024) [2024] FCA 1003.

2. I understand that Rano has been appealed by the Respondent, but at the time of my decision it relevantly binds me. In that matter, the Court concluded that the applicant’s indefinite exclusion from travel to, entry and (or) remaining in Australia was a legal consequence of a decision to cancel his visa…and [a]ccordingly was a consideration the Minister was bound to take into account (at [14]). However, the Court in Rano recognised that the outcome was an obvious outcome and was plainly intended from the overall statutory scheme. It was not necessary to expressly mention it because it looms large and forms part of the implicit, if not explicit, assumption and backdrop against which all considerations are to be evaluated.

3. As the practical operation of these provisions are currently understood to amount to a legal consequence of a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation, and in any event, I record for completeness that I am acutely aware of them and take them into account. I attach no further weight to those matters under the ‘other’ consideration of ‘legal consequences’, but do recognise the way section 501E and special return criterion 5001 operate.

   Extent of impediments if removed

4. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction No 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction No 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:

   ·The Applicant’s age and health;

   ·Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

   ·Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

5. By way of context, I restate that Mr Verrill was born in the United States to an Australian mother. He has told me, and I accept, that he has had no contact with his father or his father’s family in the United States. Although Mr Verrill was born in New York state, Mr Verrill did not identify any particular part of the United States that might be his destination in the event of his removal from Australia. Mr Verrill came to Australia as a very young child and has not since departed.

6. Mr Verrill is 52 years of age, and has a number of chronic health problems. In his written submissions, these are identified as substance addiction, gout and psoriasis. I note also that in his evidence Mr Verrill explained that he requires a hip replacement, and I have noted the radiological report[79] identifying marked osteoarthritis of the left hip.

   [79] Exhibit 8.5, page 406.

7. A complete extract of Mr Verrill’s health records from immigration detention have been tendered into evidence. The records also show that Mr Verrill has gastric reflux disease, and possibly a ganglion cyst. As discussed above in relation to Mr Verrill’s risk of repeating his offending, he has also sought psychological support and counselling. An 18-month psychiatric review[80] identified no mood, anxiety or psychiatric disorder, but noted the history of alcohol abuse, polysubstance abuse and an antisocial personality disorder. 

   [80] Exhibit 8.1, page 142.

8. Mr Verrill’s psoriasis condition appears to be particularly troublesome. I note from correspondence from a specialist dermatologist that Mr Verrill is treated with a medication called ‘Enstilar’ and was to considera medication called ‘apremilast’. He has previously undergone courses of methotrexate. The condition was described by the specialist as moderately severe.[81]

   [81] Exhibit 8.4.

9. In written submissions, it is contended that Mr Verrill’s capacity to deal with his health concerns should he be taken to the United States is non-existent, requiring as they do, professional medical intervention and supervision. It is submitted that the conditions therefore pose a significant risk to his capacity to maintain a basic living standard should he be removed from Australia.

10. It is convenient to examine Mr Verrill’s health, and medical support available to him in the United States together.

11. I identify Mr Verrill’s chronic health problems to include substance addiction, gout, moderately severe psoriasis, and gastric reflux disease. He also appears to have osteoarthritis of the hip.

12. Treatment and management of all of these conditions exist in the United States. The contention that Mr Verrill’s capacity to deal with his health concerns in the United States should be taken to be non-existent in this regard is not understood or accepted. To the extent that the submission is intended to convey that Mr Verrill lacks the personal drive or capacity to navigate a new health system, I do not accept that to be the case given his demonstrated engagement and self-motivation with his rehabilitation, and to produce some evidence to the Tribunal regarding aspects of the health and social security system in the United States.   

13. Whether Mr Verrill is able to financially access medical care for his chronic conditions in the United States is however a different question. I accept that removal to the United States would introduce a level of complexity and financial burden in the management of his chronic health conditions that Mr Verrill has not experienced in Australia or in immigration detention.

14. Mr Verrill has submitted evidence addressing impediments he would face in the United States regarding homelessness, health care and access to social security. In relation to health care, Mr Verrill has provided an artificial intelligence ‘AI’ overview. I have examined the documents provided by Mr Verrill and note Mr Verrill’s submission that the system in the United States is complex and is substantially less generous than the Australian Medicare system. I accept there is no clear system of universal health care in the United States and health care is generally accessed through private health insurance arrangements often arranged through ones’ employer. Mr Verrill’s AI overview identified that 9% of Americans are uninsured.

15. Mr Verrill contends that a hip replacement in the United States would cost between $30,000 and $112,000, cortisone shots would cost between $25 and $1000, and his psoriasis medication would typically cost $1,407 for 60gms, while apremilast would cost $5,249 for 55 tablets.

16. Predicting Mr Verrill’s capacity to access to healthcare, health insurance and medication in the United States is speculative. There is no good reason to presume that Mr Verrill will be unemployed in the United States in the medium to long term in the event of his removal. However, I accept that Mr Verrill’s management of his chronic health conditions will be more difficult immediately upon his arrival pending him orienting himself and finding employment.

17. I accept that Mr Verrill will encounter very significant impediments in establishing himself in the United States, particularly by reference to his state of health and his capacity to meet the costs of managing his chronic health conditions. I do not accept the contention that Mr Verrill’s capacity to manage these conditions in the United States as non-existent, but I do accept difficulty in meeting the financial costs of medical treatment in the United States, particularly as Mr Verrill establishes himself, amounts to a significant impediment if removed. 

18. I do not consider that Mr Verrill’s age per se is an impediment to removal. Nor do I consider that there would be substantial language or cultural barriers but I do recognise that removal from Australia will unquestionably present a profound psycho-emotional shock to Mr Verrill. So much was evident in the proceedings when the topic of removal to the United States was discussed with him.

19. As to social and economic support, I accept that Mr Verrill will have no family support available to him in the United States from within the United States, and his arrival in that country by himself amounts to a very substantial impediment in establishing himself. Any financial support available to Mr Verrill upon his immediate arrival in the United States may well have its source in Australia, and Mr Zachery Verrill was asked in cross examination if he would be able to provide some financial support to his father in these circumstances, and conceded he would for a short period, but could not do so indefinitely.

20. Access to social security and housing support in the United States was a matter of particular concern to Mr Verrill, and he has provided AI generated overviews of the social security system and homelessness problem in the United States. Again, it is difficult to reach firm findings about whether Mr Verrill will be able to access any degree of government social security or housing support, and whether he will require such support. Mr Verrill does not know where in the United States he would go, and the information provided by Mr Verrill indicates the extent and nature of social security and social support in the United Stated varies greatly between locations, as does the extent of homelessness. The need to access social security and the risk of homelessness is also influenced by the availability of employment, and I have no good reason to assume that Mr Verrill will be unemployed in the United States in the longer term.

21. Mr Verrill contends that he will fall into the category of transitional homelessness in the United States, characterised by people experiencing a major life change or catastrophic event, and in that regard I accept this is possible. Mr Verrill also points to the need to have attained work credits to be entitled to social security, and in this way Mr Verrill contends he will not be entitled to social security in the United States. The Respondent contends that the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States on Social Security signed in September 2001 (and incorporated for Australia’s part into domestic law in the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 makes provision for Mr Verrill’s work history in Australia to be taken into account for assessing his eligibility for social security in the United States.

22. Ultimately, I accept Mr Verrill’s contention that it is quite uncertain whether or not he will be able to access social security payments in the United States. In relation to other forms of social support, I consider it is equally uncertain in circumstances where Mr Verrill does not know where in the United States he will go. In taking into account the degree of impediment Mr Verrill will face if removed in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards, I consider that the impediments are very substantial, but by no means hopeless given Mr Verrill has demonstrated a capacity to work during other stages of his life and may also be able to access some limited social support in the United States and some financial support from Australia in the short-term.

    Impact on Australian business interests

23. Paragraph 9.3 of Direction No 110 states:

    (1)Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

24. In remitting this matter to the Tribunal, the Court[82]found error in the previously constituted Tribunal overlooking Mr Verrill’s ‘business interest claim’ that remaining in Australia would have a positive impact on his son’s roofing business for which he intended to work and in doing so failed to consider the mandatory consideration provided for in paragraph 9.4 of Ministerial Direction 99, which was then applicable.

    [82] Verrill v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 802

25. Previously, and before the previously constituted Tribunal, Mr Zachary Verrill had provided a statement[83] putting forward an offer of employment for his father in his roofing business that operates in the Mackay -Whitsunday region. The offer came with accommodation, and the statement observed Mr Verrill had worked for his son previously.

    [83] G30, page 185.

26. Mr Zachary Verrill’s statement of 2 October 2024 states that given his father’s previous experience in management roles, he wished to expand the offer that he had previously made [concerning employing his father]. Mr Verrill states that his business has experiences substantial growth in recent years, expanding into commercial projects and employing up to eight employees. Mr Zachary Verrill indicated he wanted his father to fill a critical role of Business Liaison Officer, overseeing all financial, legal and contractual matters essential to the operation of the company.

27. The statement says that Mr Verrill has previous experience in management roles, and he has confidence in his ability to fulfill this position. Mr Zachary Verrill observes that previous employees holding this position had struggled with the responsibilities leading to financial discrepancies, theft and issues with punctuality in payments. Mr Zachary Verrill believes that his father, as a blood relative, will ensure these matters are handled correctly and legally without embezzlement. It was pointed out that Mr Verrill is already a member of the ‘Zachery Verrill Trust’. In this regard, it appears that Mr Zachery Verrill operates his business through a discretionary family trust, and Mr Verrill’s inclusion amongst a list of potential beneficiaries is of no significance in my view.

28. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, in cross examination Mr Zachery Verrill said that he conducts drug and alcohol tests on his employees as he now has government contracts, and after one warning he will terminate the employment of an employee who fails such a test. He said that rule would also apply to his father, but he had every faith that would not happen.

29. Mr Verrill has provided photographic evidence of Mr Zachary Verrill’s business’ projects, that I note include very large commercial structures. I accept that Mr Zachary Verrill has a genuine need to employ a person in the role he has described, and I accept as logical why Mr Zachary Verrill believes his father would be effective and, perhaps more importantly, trustworthy in the role.

30. I consider the impact on Mr Zachary Verrill’s business interests would be adverse should he not be able to take the plan he described through to fruition. However, a number of circumstances lead me to conclude that the impact will not be particularly substantial. First, Mr Verrill does not currently perform that role. Second, Mr Verrill has never performed the role envisaged because it has only recently been created. Finally, while I have followed Mr Zachary Verrill’s rationale in preferring to have a trusted family member in the role in circumstances where he has encountered problems in the past, I do not accept that Mr Zachary Verrill would be unable to select a different person to effectively perform the role from the wider Australian workforce.

31. I have understood and see the force in the arguments pressed upon me as to why offering this position to Mr Verrill will solve many problems he would face on release from immigration detention including removing him from locations where he has previously found trouble, assisting him with his substance rehabilitation, providing accommodation and allowing him to be closer and more involved in the lives of his son and grandchildren. However, when I examine the matter by reference to clause 9.3 of the Direction, I have concluded that while it will be a somewhat adverse impact on Mr Zachary Verrill’s business, it is neither substantial nor insurmountable and carries little weight in the overall evaluative task I am undertaking.

32. As to whether the decision will compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia, I find that it would not, reflecting my findings above. To avoid doubt, that finding is in addition to my general engagement with Mr Verrill’s contentions that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa would impact adversely on his son’s business.

33. I have also considered the offer of employment presented in Mr Corey Verrill’s statement of 20 May 2023. Mr Corey Verrill is the Executive Chef at the Settlers Hotel in Biloela. I note from the transcript of the previous proceedings that the issue was not further explored in any detail, and Mr Corey Verrill did not give evidence in the remitted proceedings. It is not clear that it is contended that the decision will impact on the business interests of the Settlers Hotel in Biloela, but for completeness, I have considered all the evidence available to me on this topic, and I am not satisfied that the Settlers Hotel in Biloela will be adversely impacted by a decision not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Verrill’s visa. 

34. In this regard, the nature of the employment offered by Mr Corey Verrill has not been explained, and there is no basis to conclude that the needs of the business could not be met by an alternative employee.

    CONCLUSION

35. Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.

36. There has been extensive judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding the Direction).

37. The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (‘CRNL’) said:

    ‘[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [the precursor Direction 90] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together.’[84]

    [84] [2023] FCAFC 138, [23].

38. I find the guidance from the Court at paragraph [38] is particularly instructive:

    The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is “another reason” why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute “another reason” and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute “another reason” capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

39. In this matter, my evaluation has identified significant matters weighing in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the visa. Mr Verrill’s strong ties to the Australian community of very substantial duration, the best interests of his daughters and grandchildren and the impediments he will face if removed from Australia in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards have all weighed heavily.

1. However, I have concluded that Mr Verrill, despite his work in rehabilitating himself and motivation not to reoffend continues to present a real risk of reoffending when regard is had to his appalling criminal history. That criminal history has involved escalating family violence offending, including against vulnerable members of the community which did not abate until his incarceration and which demonstrably could not be addressed by the family violence prevention orders which he routinely breached. I have found that Mr Verrill presents a real, albeit moderate, risk of reoffending but that the consequences should he reoffend are so serious that the risk is unacceptable. I have placed very significant weight on the protection of the Australian community.

2. After much reflection I have ultimately concluded that the unacceptable risk is insufficiently outweighed by the factors that I have identified above at paragraph 281, and so as a product of the overall evaluative exercise with which I have been engaged, I have concluded that there is not another reason to revoke the decision to cancel Mr Verrill’s visa.

3. As I have found that the applicant neither passes the character test, as defined by subsection 501(6) of the Migration Act, nor that there is another reason why the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked, I will affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 284 (two-hundred and eighty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member M Kennedy

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

Associate

Dated: 26 February 2025

Date of hearing:	12 and 13 December 2024
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Self-Represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Jarvis Kirstenfeldt, Sparke Helmore