Vural and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

[2019] AATA 579

Vural and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 579 (29 March 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:           2019/0099

Re:Erdal Vural

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris

Date:29 March 2019

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BB Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

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

Senior Member

Catchwords

MIGRATION – Mandatory cancellation of Applicant’s visa - applicant fails character test – Direction No. 79 – any other reasons to revoke mandatory cancellation – primary considerations – other considerations – any other matter – previous warnings from department about migration status being affected by further offending – reviewable decision affirmed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 33
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Reg 2.52

Cases

Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337
R v Vo & Vural [2018] VCC
SCJD and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4020

Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15

Secondary Materials

Migration Act 1958 – Direction No. 79 – direction under Section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Made by Minister on 20 December 2018, commenced 28 February 2019).

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member D. J. Morris

29 March 2019

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Erdal Vural was born in September 1967 in Ankara, Turkey and is a Turkish citizen.  He first came to Australia with his parents in June 1970, aged almost 3.  He has returned four times to Turkey for family reasons between 1989 and 2000, living there cumulatively for around eighteen months, but has lived in Australia continuously since January 2000.

2. In December 1999 Mr Vural was granted a Class BB Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. In 2006 Mr Vural applied for Australian citizenship, but that application was refused in 2007. On 25 June 2018 the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) cancelled Mr Vural’s visa. The cancellation was mandatory under section 501(3A)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) because Mr Vural was, at that time, serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and because the Applicant had a ‘substantial criminal record’ under section 501(7)(c) of the Act, in that he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

3. On 5 July 2018 Mr Vural made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. On 3 January 2019 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) decided, under section 501CA(4) of the Act, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. On 4 January 2019 Mr Vural was notified of the delegate’s decision; and on 8 January 2019 he applied to this Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.

4. The hearing was held on 18 and 19 March 2019.  The Applicant represented himself, gave evidence and was cross-examined by Ms Rachel Noronha of Clayton Utz, representing the Minister.  Mr Vural’s father, three adult children and sister also gave evidence. The Minister tendered a volume of documents (‘GD’), as well as summonsed documents from Victoria Police produced on 15 February 2019 (Exhibit R1); DFAT Country Information Report Turkey, dated 9 October 2018 (Exhibit R2); and Republic of Turkey Social Security Institution, Social Security System 2016 (Exhibit R3).  The Respondent also submitted a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.  The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Turkish language in relation to one witness, the father of the Applicant.

5. The Applicant submitted a written statement dated 3 February 2019 (Exhibit A1); written statement of Ifaket Sibel Vural (Exhibit A2); written statement of Ferhat Vural (Exhibit A3); written statement of Furkan Vural (Exhibit A4); written statement of Seckin Vural (Exhibit A5); written statement of Serpil Turkes (Exhibit A6); and a written statement of Muzaffer Vural (Exhibit A7).

6. On the first day of the hearing, Mr Vural advised the Tribunal of a letter he had just received from an officer of the Islamic Youth Association of Australia.  The Tribunal made clear in the hearing that a special legislative regime applies to written material submitted by an applicant in relation to cancellations or refusals of a visa under section 501 of the Act.  That regime stipulates, at section 500(6J) of the Act, that the Tribunal must not have regard to any document submitted in support of a person’s case unless a copy of the document was given to the Minister at least two business days before the Tribunal holds a hearing (other than a directions hearing) in relation to the decision under review.  Ms Noronha indicated that the Minister had not received the document before it was produced by Mr Vural and, consistent with the provisions of section 500(6J), objected to the letter being taken into consideration. 

7. Applying the special restrictions which are clear in section 500(6J) of the Act, the Tribunal must not have regard to this document in support of Mr Vural’s case. However, the Parliament has given the Tribunal a broad power to inform itself on any matter as it thinks appropriate (see section 33(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act)), and consistent with this power, the Tribunal received the letter (TD1). Parties did not request the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing to consider the document. However, the Tribunal takes the view that had the document contained information which the Respondent considered materially affected its position, taking into account the restricted timeframe set down in section 501(6L) of the Act for the Tribunal to review decisions of this nature, the Tribunal would, in the interests of justice, have accepted a request for an adjournment for two days, noting the document was seen by the Respondent on the first day and that each day’s hearing may be regarded as a separate ‘hearing’ for the purposes of giving notice under section 500 (see Nettle J in Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15, at [115]).

   Legislative framework

8. Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the decision-maker may revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa if he made representations within the relevant time period, provided for in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (28 days in accordance with reg. 2.52) and the decision-maker determines that the Applicant passes the ‘character test’, or, as provided for under section 501CA(4)(b), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. The Minister accepted that Mr Vural had made representations within the prescribed period.

9. Section 501(3A) of the Act is a mandatory cancellation power.  It relevantly provides that the Minister (or his delegate) must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

   (a)       the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

   (i)paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c)…

   (ii)…; and

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

10. The Tribunal had before it (GD, p 25) an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission criminal history check dated 21 September 2018.  The list of offences recorded in that certificate is reproduced in the Appendix to these reasons.  Relevantly, the certificate records that on 15 February 2010 at the Melbourne County Court, Mr Vural was convicted of the  offences of Traffick (sic) drug of dependence (3 counts); Handle/receive/retention  stolen goods (sic); and Possess drug of dependence, and was sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 2 years and 9 months.  Section 501(6) of the Act states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’.  A person has a substantial criminal record under section 501(7)(c) of the Act if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. 

11. The criminal history check also shows that on 6 June 2018, at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court, Mr Vural was convicted of several offences (listed in the Appendix) and was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of two months, to be served concurrently.

12. On the facts, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant fails the character test on the basis of the sentence passed on him on 15 February 2010 and that he was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis at the time his visa was cancelled (section 501(6)(b) of the Act).

13. Section 501CA relevantly provides that:

    (1)This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

    …

    (4)       The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

    (a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

    (b)the Minister is satisfied:

    (i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

    (ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

14. Having found that Mr Vural fails the character test, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether there is another reason why the original visa cancellation decision should be revoked. 

15. The Federal Court stated in Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337, at [38]:

    The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation.  If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view.  There is a single, not a two stage, process and the Minister does not have a residual discretion to refuse to revoke the cancellation if satisfied that it should be revoked…

    The Tribunal, standing in the shoes of the Minister, adopts this approach.

    Ministerial Direction No. 79

16. Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions about the exercise of functions or powers under the Act.  The delegate who refused to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa consulted Direction No. 65, made under section 499.  On 20 December 2018 the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (who is jointly authorised with the Minister for Home Affairs to administer the Act) made a fresh direction under section 499, namely Direction No. 79.  Direction No. 79 (the Direction) commenced on 28 February 2019 and (at section 3) revokes Direction No. 65 from that date.  Section 499(2A) of the Act requires that the Tribunal must comply with the Direction in considering this matter. The correct Direction for the Tribunal to consider is Direction No. 79.

17. Paragraph 6.1 of the Direction states, in part:

    6.1Objectives

    (1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.

    …

    (3)Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had his or her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.

18. Relevantly, the Direction includes the following principles at paragraph 6.3:

    (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 Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.

    (3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.

    (4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable.  In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.

    (5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.  However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    (6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.

    (7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.

19. In deciding whether to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, a decision-maker must take into account considerations set out in

    
    

    Part C of the Direction.  Part C is divided into Primary considerations and Other considerations.  The primary considerations in Part C are set out in paragraph 13(2) of the Direction.  They are: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; The best interests of minor children in Australia; and Expectations of the Australian community.

20. Paragraph 14(1) of the Direction sets out other considerations in relation to revocation requests.  They are: International non-refoulement obligations; Strength, nature and duration of ties; Impact on Australian business interests; Impact on victims; and Extent of impediments if removed.  The Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations (see paragraphs 8(4) and 8(5) of the Direction).

    The Applicant’s Evidence

21. Mr Vural gave evidence about emigrating in 1970 as a young child with his parents.  In regard to his trips back to Turkey as a young man, Mr Vural said that at the time his mother was unwell and had returned to Turkey.  He visited her several times until she sadly died.

22. He said that he had been influenced in his life by ‘bad people’. A car accident he had in 2005 injured his back, caused sustained pain and led him down the path to further drug taking.  He said he wanted to be a law-abiding citizen, and that now he was over 50 he was on a methadone programme and wanted to stay clean from drugs.

23. Mr Vural agreed that he first came before the Courts as a minor, aged about 14.  The national police check contains seven charges heard by the Melbourne Children’s Court but the Tribunal has redacted them from the offences in the Appendix and does not take them into account in this consideration.

24. Mr Vural agreed that his first offending largely involved offences of dishonesty, but in 1986 he was fined by the Moonee Ponds Magistrates’ Court in relation to the offence of Use other drug of dependence.  He said he was about 15 or 16 when he first started using drugs, having been introduced to them by school friends.

25. Mr Vural said he started taking cannabis but this led to other drugs, including amphetamines and ‘ice’ (crystal methamphetamine).  Mr Vural was asked about his first conviction for aiding and abetting trafficking in drugs, in 1987. He said he was involved with friends and said ‘yes’ to everything.  He said he could not remember the details of the conviction for the Aiding and abetting the trafficking of amphetamine charge.

26. Mr Vural was taken to the offences recorded from 1987 to 2002 and agreed that there were some fifteen convictions for drug offences and offences of violence.  Ms Noronha asked him about the 1993 offences, when he was convicted of six charges of the offence of Assault with weapon and several other assault charges, including two charges of Assault police.  Mr Vural said he believed that his mother passed away around this time and this contributed to his depression.  He said he did, at the time, consult with a psychologist but he could not remember the details.  He conceded that he has been a ‘violent person’.

27. In terms of gaps between his convictions for drug trafficking, Mr Vural said that his habit has always been ‘on and off’.  He would try to be clean for one or two years, and then return to using again.  He said because his use was so heavy, when he was arrested he would be charged with trafficking because of the amount of drugs in his possession.  In terms of the gap in offending between 1997 and 2006, Mr Vural said that was when he was engaged in his apprenticeship as a motor mechanic.

28. Between 2006 and 2008 Mr Vural was convicted of around 20 offences.  By way of explanation he said he was at that time heavily using cannabis, heroin, ice and ‘whatever drugs I could get’.

29. Mr Vural was asked about incoming passenger arrival cards from 1995 and 2000 (GD, p 180 and 181) where he had ticked the box marked ‘no’ in relation to any criminal offences when he had, at that time, been convicted of some 40 offences.  Mr Vural said as he had not been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (other than suspended terms) until 2008, he didn’t realise that he should have acknowledged the offences, and that this was an ‘honest mistake’.

30. Mr Vural said he had undertaken some courses while in custody (GD, p 74-77) to help educate him on the damage that drugs can do, and equip him to avoid drugs on release.  He said he could not remember much about the details of the courses.

31. Ms Noronha asked Mr Vural about a letter he had received in April 2008 (GD, p 172) from the Department headed ‘Formal Counselling Letter’.  The letter explains the operation of section 501 of the Act, sets out that the Department has become aware of Mr Vural’s criminal record and goes on to state:

    No consideration is currently being given to cancelling your Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa, under section 501 of the Act.  Your visa will therefore continue to provide you with permission to remain in Australia.

    The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of section 501(6), could result in the cancellation of your visa.  I note that the consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases, bars on re-entering Australia.

1. Mr Vural said he recalls receiving the letter.  When asked why he continued to offend, he told the Tribunal that he thought the warning about his visa related to the same kind of offences that he had been convicted of in the past, relating to drugs and weapons, and that he never went back to selling drugs.

2. He then admitted that he continued to offend because he had a drug problem.  He said he sought help from his Community Corrections Order (CCO) supervisor, to get off drugs.

3. Mr Vural was taken to sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Gamble in the County Court on 15 February 2010 in R v Vo & Vural [2018] VCC (GD, p 154-171).  In relation to the Applicant, His Honour said:

   In August 2007 police commenced the drug operation codenamed Recent.  You, Mr Vural, were the primary target of that operation.  During the course of that operation, you were introduced to a person who, unbeknown to you, was a covert police operative.  On six occasions between 1 August and 25 October 2007, you sold drugs to that covert operative.  On two separate occasions in August 2007 you sold a gram of heroin.  On five separate occasions between 23 August and 25 October 2007 you sold methylamphetamine in amounts that ranged between one gram and 14 grams, or half an ounce.  In total you sold two grams of heroin and 29 grams of methylamphetamine to that cover[t] operative over a period of nearly three months.  You received a total of $8,850 as a result of those sales.  You sourced your heroin and methylamphetamine from Mr Vo.

   …

   From an early age you commenced to use cannabis and have been an intermittent user of speed up until the mid-1990s.  You married in 1988 when you were 19 years of age.  Your mother died when you were 21 and you do not get on with your father, who was a strict disciplinarian.  In 2000, aged in your early 30s, you completed your apprenticeship and have since worked for a number of companies before starting your own business as an auto mechanic.  That business was successful in the following years and enabled you to meet the expenses of the business and your home mortgage.

   However, as the result of a significant back injury that you received in a motor vehicle accident in 2005 your business failed and you became severely depressed.  A number of reports in relation to your injury and the resultant depression and anxiety that you experienced were tendered during your plea.  I have read those reports and have taken their contents into account when determining the appropriate sentence in your case.  I accept the submissions of your counsel that the context of your offending should be seen as a mitigating factor in the sense that you were offending in order to fund your drug use, which itself was a response to the pain from your injury and associated depression.

   …

   Mr Vural, as I have already stated, the offence of trafficking in a drug of dependence is rightly viewed by Parliament and the community as an inherently serious offence, as is reflected by the fact that it carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.  The three offences of trafficking committed by you, in particular Count 2 relating to the drug methylamphetamine, represent serious examples of this type of offence. …

   You were a polydrug trafficker engaged in the business of trafficking in those drugs over a period of three months….The 72 grams of heroin in relation to Count 1 represents 24 times the trafficable quantity of that drug, 3 grams.  Even more significantly, the 235 grams of methylamphetamine in Count 1 represents approximately 78 times the trafficable quantity for that drug, again 3 grams.

   [Note: the age at which the Applicant is said to have married is not correct, because Mr Vural has over the years cited several different dates of birth to the police and the Department.  He agreed in evidence that his date of birth was 8 September 1967.]

4. Ms Noronha asked Mr Vural about a letter dated 16 February 2011 he received from an officer of the Department (GD p 175).  This letter relevantly said:

   On 6 July 2010, the [then] Department of Immigration and Citizenship notified you that the visa which authorises your continued stay in Australia may be liable for cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 on character grounds.

   As I advised you by phone today, after taking into account all relevant considerations, a delegate of the Minister has made a decision not to cancel your visa on character grounds on this occasion.  Your current Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa will continue to provide you with permission to remain in and re-enter Australia.  However the delegate decided that you are to be given the following formal warning.

   Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in future.  Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if you case is reconsidered.

   [Bold type in the original.]

5. The letter was sent by registered post to Mr Vural at his home and he acknowledged receiving it, as recorded in a signed acknowledgement dated 23 February 2011 (GD, p 177).  Mr Vural told the Tribunal he did not realise it was a second warning.

6. Mr Vural was asked about some 40 further offences of which he has been convicted in the last five years, including some which are drug-related.  He acknowledged the offending and said at the time he had a new female partner who led him back to drug use.  He said at the time he couldn’t think properly and wasn’t thinking about the prospects of prison or the possible consequences in regard to his visa.  He told the Tribunal at this time he was injecting heroin, using ice, taking ecstasy and smoking cannabis, often all of them together.

7. Mr Vural said that he had four grandchildren to think about now, two of whom he had not yet seen because he has been in custody or immigration detention.  When asked by Ms Noronha whether he spoke Turkish, Mr Vural said he does ‘a bit’ and that he speaks to his father in Turkish.  The Tribunal notes that this is in contrast to what Mr Vural said in his written statement (Exhibit A1) where he wrote “…I don’t speak Turkish”, and what he told the Department in his personal circumstances form (GD p 49).

   Evidence of Ms Serpil Turkes

8. Ms Turkes, the sister of the Applicant, gave evidence to the Tribunal.  She said she was aware her brother has been using drugs for many years and that she had never approved of it and had supported him when he had attempted to give up his habit.

9. Ms Turkes was of the view that Mr Vural has been shocked by the cancellation of his visa.  She said that in the past she had the sense he would relapse, and had been proven right, but that on this occasion, given this shock, she felt he was not likely to relapse.  She told the Tribunal that she had aunts and uncles in Turkey but was not in contact with any of them.  She said that in 1988-89 her father wanted her to return to Turkey but she found she couldn’t relate to the culture in that country, and then her mother died.

   Evidence of Mr Ferhat Vural

10. Mr Ferhat Vural, the oldest child of the Applicant, gave evidence.  He said that his father has always been there for him and his two siblings and that he has never involved them in drug use.  He told the Tribunal that he was the ‘carer’ of his father because he had been looking after him; and that it would be heart-breaking if his father’s visa remained cancelled and he had to leave Australia.

    Evidence of Mr Furkan Vural

11. Mr Furkan Vural, the youngest child of the Applicant, gave evidence.  Mr Furkan Vural said that he had had an ‘up and down’ relationship with his father and had broken contact with him when he was heavily using drugs.  Mr Furkan Vural said he had recently become a father himself and had been prompted to support his father in these proceedings by becoming a parent.  He said that his father has not yet met his infant daughter because he has been in detention.  Mr Furkan Vural said that at one stage he moved back to Turkey to get away from his father, and felt that his father had made very bad choices in his friendships, which had contributed to his drug use.  The witness agreed that his father had never used drugs in front of him or his siblings and had never physically harmed any of them, ‘only emotionally’.

    Evidence of Ms Ifaket Sibel Vural

12. Ms Ifaket Sibel Vural, daughter of the Applicant, gave evidence.  She said her father had always been loving, supportive and reliable as a parent.  She said she was aware of his drug use and felt Mr Vural knew he was damaging himself.  She said it had been difficult growing up but that, now she was older, she would be able to give him more support.  Ms Vural said she had two daughters, aged 6 and 4, and that they had visited their grandfather in immigration detention.

    Evidence of Mr Muzaffer Vural

13. Mr Muzaffer Vural, father of the Applicant, gave evidence at the hearing.  He said that he had siblings living in Turkey and that he spoke to them regularly by telephone and, when his health permits, visited them in Turkey.

14. Ms Noronha asked Mr Vural whether he thought the extended family members in Turkey would be able to offer support to the Applicant if he was repatriated.  Mr Vural thought that would be unlikely.  Mr Muzaffer Vural said that he generally converses in Turkish with his son.

    CONSIDERATION

15. The Tribunal considered each of the primary considerations in the Direction and, as relevant, the other considerations.

    Primary considerations

    Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 13.1)

16. The Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to the nature and seriousness of the conduct of the non-citizen to date, and the risk to the community should he commit further offences.

    The nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 13.1.1)

17. The Direction requires the decision-maker to take into account the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending or other conduct to date.  Mr Vural has, by any measure, a long history of regular offending.  The offences have included crimes of violence, many drug-related offences and several offences of dishonesty.

18. The Tribunal notes, in particular, that during his evidence Mr Vural first asserted that he was not trafficking and that he was only convicted of those offences because of the quantity of drugs found in his possession, which was of such a large amount that he was deemed by statute to be trafficking.  However, he later contradicted that evidence to say that after one term of imprisonment “I resumed taking drugs, but was no longer trafficking.”

19. While the Tribunal may accept that the commercial nature of Mr Vural’s drug trafficking may be linked to his own heavy drug use, the evidence accepted by the Court, and set out by Judge Gamble, was that he was involved in the commercial drug trade.  The Tribunal may not look behind this finding by the Court.

20. The Respondent drew the Tribunal’s attention to the comments of Senior Member Cameron in SCJD and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4020 where he said [80-82]:

    The seriousness of drug trafficking is well known. It has been commented on by several of the trial judges before whom the Applicant has come.

    The corrupting effect of drug trafficking on the community has many facets. In many instances such as with overdosing on heroin it leads to death. The heroin toll in this country is almost as high as the road toll but rarely rates the same attention. It destroys families. Parent and children relationships frequently cease as a result of a person’s drug dependency. There is a massive toll on the nation’s mental health system caused by consumption of drugs. Frequently, this leads to the triggering of or early onset of a variety of mental health afflictions. These can include anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and paranoia. Tragically, drugs are all too frequently trafficked to young people including secondary school pupils. It leads to lives and potential careers being derailed, if not finished. It places demands on hospitals, health care systems, disability support networks and agencies, ambulance services, police, courts and other associated organisations and entities.

    In the course of ruining lives drug abuse leads to its victims often having to descend into crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and robbery (amongst others) to support their habit. Innocent people going about their lives can be the subject of robbery and attack by drug affected persons.

21. The Tribunal respectfully agrees with the sentiments expressed in these remarks.  Trading in drugs, especially to the extent that led, as the Court recorded, to Victoria Police mounting a special operation specifically targeting Mr Vural’s suspected offending, is undoubtedly profiting from human misery and exploiting vulnerable people, and has a malevolent effect on Australian society.  The fact that Mr Vural himself admits a long-standing drug habit does not excuse his trafficking.

22. While it may be accepted that some of his earlier convictions were not at the higher end of the spectrum of offending, the Courts before which Mr Vural appeared have used a variety of sentencing tools and sanctions including fines, several suspended sentences and various forms of orders.  None of these sanctions appears to have had much effect on Mr Vural’s criminal behaviour, and he has generally breached the behavioural orders that have been imposed.

23. The Direction also requires the Tribunal to assess the cumulative nature of repeated offending and, at paragraph 13.1.1 (h):

    Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).

24. As set out above, Mr Vural had two explicit written warnings from the Department about his migration status, in 2008 and again in 2011.  He was also spoken to by an officer of the Department.  He heeded neither warning.  This is a significant factor for the Tribunal to take into account because he did not claim to be unaware of the direct possible consequences to his migration status in Australia if he continued to offend.  The Tribunal does not accept Mr Vural’s submission that he thought the warnings were only about the ‘same kind’ of offending; the letters were clear that they were about any form of criminal offending.

    The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 13.1.2)

25. From a forensic perspective, the Tribunal has no material before it providing an objective assessment of Mr Vural’s likelihood of offending.  Mr Vural did not articulate any plan he had to ensure that he did not continue to take illicit drugs, other than to say that he had been offered drugs in immigration detention and had refused.  When asked why the Tribunal should accept that he would not relapse into criminal behaviour, Mr Vural said, several times, that he was now ‘elderly’, because he is aged over 50, and did not want to be regarded by others as an ‘old druggie’.

26. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Vural’s sister and his children are genuine in their desire to assist him to rehabilitate, but is not confident that the Applicant has an appreciation of what he must do to ensure he does not slide back into re-offending.  The Tribunal also notes that, although Judge Gamble stated that part of Mr Vural’s remorse may be illustrated by his acceptance of a significant pecuniary penalty, Mr Vural told the Tribunal that he had never paid the fine imposed by the Court.  Mr Vural’s remorse, as  expressed, was to a large extent self-serving and centred on his age and how he had wasted years of his life, rather than what the impact of his offending may have been on victims and the community.

27. The Respondent’s representative put to Mr Vural whether he understood the direct link between his drug use and his criminal offending; which he acknowledged.  Ms Noronha submitted to the Tribunal that having three children and then grandchildren has not provided any apparent motivation for behavioural change.

28. The Tribunal concludes that the risk of Mr Vural re-offending is real and that it is not an insignificant risk.  The Tribunal takes into account the more than 100 offences of which he has been convicted and the relatively few rehabilitation courses he has undertaken, none for some ten years.

29. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs against revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa.

    Best interest of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 13.2)

30. The Direction requires decision-makers to determine whether revocation is in the best interests of the child (paragraph 13.2 (1)).  Where there are two or more children, the best interests of the children should be given individual consideration, to the extent that their interests may differ.

31. The minor children relevant in this consideration are Mr Vural’s four grandchildren, two children of his daughter (born May 2013 and August 2015), and one child to each of his sons (born May 2017 and July 2018).  As mentioned above, Mr Vural said he has not met his two younger grandchildren.  The Direction requires that the Tribunal generally should give less weight to this primary consideration where the relationship is non-parental or where there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact (paragraph 13.2 (a)) and whether, as in this case, there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the grandchildren (paragraph 13.2(e)).

32. The Tribunal accepts that each of Mr Vural’s children want their father to be able to participate in the lives of their children as they grow up.  The Tribunal accepts the genuine written and oral evidence from each of Applicant’s children that elements of Mr Vural’s fatherly role for them in the past were, notwithstanding his extensive criminal history, positive in a family sense and, as Mr Vural himself said, none of his children have ever been in trouble with the law.

33. The Tribunal must carefully consider this primary consideration and, to the extent that there is difference between the best interests of the four minor children, the impact of Mr Vural’s visa remaining cancelled will be greater on the two daughters of Ms Vural, who have visited their grandfather, the older of whom has, according to Ms Vural’s evidence, some understanding, now, that her grandfather is not at liberty.  The best interests of the two younger grandchildren who have not met their grandfather weigh more lightly because of this fact, but still do carry some weight.

34. The Tribunal notes that Mr Vural did not provide evidence that, apart from occasional gifts, he has played any financially supportive role in the upbringing of his grandchildren. But the Tribunal accepts the genuineness of his love for them and that the very fact of his possible absence from their lives, in a geographical sense, leads to a finding that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa.   However, owing to the ages and the level of involvement the Applicant has had in the children’s lives, not heavily so.

    Expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 13.3)

35. The Tribunal considers that the Australian community would view very adversely the criminal conduct of a non-citizen which has spanned such a long period, and which has included several crimes of violence, many crimes of dishonesty, and a strong element of drug trafficking.

36. Balancing that, the Tribunal considers that this part of the Direction requires that the hypothetical member of the Australian community must be interpreted to be a person who is properly informed about the facts of the offending, and the particular circumstances of the individual concerned.  Mr Vural came to Australia as a small boy and has, apart from the periods when he visited Turkey, lived here for almost his whole life.  He has Australian citizen children and grandchildren.  There is evidence (for example GD, p 62) that he established an automotive mechanical repair business, was a home owner and, as Judge Gamble recorded, was paying off his mortgage.  All these considerations go in favour of the Applicant.

1. However, the Tribunal considers that the hypothetical informed community member would also take into account that Mr Vural has twice received departmental warnings that if he continued to offend it may adversely affect his permission to retain a visa; in effect, that he was on notice.  Coupling with this is the fact that the Court system has applied a diverse range of sentencing and penal sanctions to Mr Vural, none of which has had any noticeable effect in halting his pattern of offending.  The seriousness of his offending, including some violent offending, has increased over the years and his participation in short rehabilitation courses in 2008 had no apparent effect in modifying his criminal behaviour, which he has resumed after each custodial sentence.

2. On balance, the Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs against restoring the visa.

   Other considerations

   International non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 14.1)

3. Australia’s obligations in regard to non-refoulement relate to this country being a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  The Tribunal may also consider complementary protection, where it is relevant.  Mr Vural is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey.  He has stated in writing that he does not ‘know the language or the culture’, but has now admitted in evidence that he does, in fact, both speak and understand Turkish.  The Tribunal also does not accept that he is unfamiliar with Turkish culture because he has lived in Ankara for periods totalling about eighteen months and states, in his personal circumstances form submitted to the Department (GD, p 46), that:

   All my family members including my grandchildren are very dear to me sharing a very strong bond.  We still practice Turkish Culture as a joint family.

4. The Tribunal accepts that being repatriated to a country he first left when only a young child would have a significant impact on Mr Vural, but that impact would be to some extent ameliorated by his understanding of the language and, to some further extent, the cultural mores of the country; and by having lived there for short periods and having, on his own statement, grown up with some understanding of Turkish customs and society. 

5. Mr Vural made written submissions (Exhibit A1):

   If I am forcibly returned to Turkey I will be persecuted as I did not attend the Tur[k]ish Army and I cannot afford to pay for the Military Exemption,…

6. The Tribunal notes that the national service regime that operates in Turkey is a law of general application to adult male Turkish citizens in a specific age group.  It is not a legislative or administrative regime selectively applied because of a citizen’s race, religion, membership of a particular social group or political viewpoint.  The Tribunal will accordingly consider this submission under the other consideration in the Direction at paragraph 14.5, namely the Extent of Impediments if removed.

7. Mr Vural did not make any other submissions relating to protection claims under the Convention, or non-protection related claims.  His father told the Tribunal he periodically holidays in Turkey and one of the Applicant’s sons said that he had for a time lived there, as has the Applicant himself, as recorded above. 

8. The Tribunal finds that on the information before the Tribunal this consideration is not engaged in this matter and so weighs neutrally in this assessment.

   Strength, nature and duration of ties (paragraph 14.2)

9. The Direction requires decision-makers to have regard to how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, and that less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia and more weight should be given to the time the person has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.

10. As discussed above, the Tribunal gives weight to the fact that Mr Vural has resided here for the greatest proportion of his life, and almost all of his adult life.  The Respondent conceded, rightly, that Mr Vural has made positive contributions to the Australian community through his employment and establishing his own business. 

11. On 5 March 2019 the Applicant lodged with the Tribunal a testimonial from Mr Unal Demirbuken dated 2 March 2019. Although the testimonial was not taken into evidence at the hearing, it was before the Respondent more than two business days before the hearing and under section 33 of the AAT Act the Tribunal may consider it. Mr Demirbuken indicated that he had known Mr Vural for over eleven years and relevantly states:

    From what I know him to be is that hi a very caring person with soft heart.  I have witnessed him to help people in need [sic].  His mistakes are taken as a lesson for him.  I feel deeply that he has been taken into a detention centre. I would like to declare that if he is out I am willing to employ him full time due to having my own construction business.

    The Tribunal notes this offer of employment, should the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa be revoked, and takes this into account. 

12. The Tribunal considers that Mr Vural has made an economic contribution, but that this is significantly tempered by the time that Mr Vural has spent in custody.

13. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Vural advises that he has an Australian citizen partner, and has three children, grandchildren, his father and stepmother and a sister living in Australia, together with other relatives, which demonstrates to the Tribunal strong ties with Australia.  The requirements of the Direction also lead me to note that his offending commenced early in his teenage years and has continued in a melancholy way, with only short periods of non-offending.

14. On balance, because of his strong family network in Australia, the Tribunal concludes that this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa.

    Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 14.3)

15. The Direction notes that the effect on Australian business interests of the revocation of a non-citizen’s visa would generally only be given weight if that revocation would significantly compromise the delivery or a major project or service in Australia.  There was no evidence before the Tribunal that this would be the case in regard to Mr Vural, so the Tribunal did not contemplate this consideration further and it weighs neutrally.

    Impact on victims (paragraph 14.4)

16. The Direction requires a decision-maker to explore this other consideration where information is available about the impact of revocation of visa cancellation on victims.  There was no such information before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal did not contemplate this consideration further.

    Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 14.5)

17. The Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account the extent of impediments a person may face if repatriated, taking into account Mr Vural’s age and health, any substantial language or cultural barriers and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in Turkey.

18. Mr Vural submitted that he suffered from depression and anxiety, and high blood pressure, and took medication for each of these conditions.  The Respondent submitted (Exhibit R3) that Mr Vural would have access to the social security system administered by the Turkish Government’s Social Security Institution which includes universal health insurance.  The Tribunal notes that this document states “The system does not include the entire population and [does] not have adequate safeguards against poverty.”  

19. However, the Direction requires that a decision-maker must consider the extent of impediments that a non-citizen may face in settling and maintaining basic living standards through the lens of what is available to the person in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.  Thus, the requirement on a decision-maker in considering paragraph 14.5(1)(a) and (c) of the Direction is not to measure what the Australian welfare system may provide, or have provided to an individual, compared with what may be available in the welfare system of a country to which a non-citizen is repatriated.  The correct approach is to assess what is generally available to citizens of the other country and would be available to a person, who is a citizen of that other country (who is broadly of the same age and with similar medical needs), if the person were repatriated.

20. The Tribunal has already discussed that Mr Vural speaks Turkish and finds that there would be no substantial language or cultural barriers if he were removed.  The Tribunal also notes that Mr Vural provided evidence of his training as an auto-mechanic and that he had had periods of employment in that trade; as well as, for a time, operating his own car mechanic business.  These skills would be readily transferable if Mr Vural was repatriated.  The Tribunal also notes that Mr Vural provided evidence of certain other skills courses he had undertaken in prison, which is to his credit, and which also would enhance his employability.  Mr Vural is, at the age of 51, not, as he submitted “elderly”, but the Tribunal acknowledges that as an older person re-entering the labour force, especially a person who has spent the greatest proportion of his life in another country, these factors would make job-seeking more difficult.

21. In terms of Mr Vural’s submissions regarding obligations for national service, the Tribunal notes that the DFAT Country Brief for Turkey (Exhibit R2) states (at 3.92):

    Article 72 of the Constitution states that national service is the right and duty of every Turk. Males are required to register at age 20 for service that commences once they turn 21. University students can defer their service until they have completed their studies. Males aged 20 to 41 are eligible for conscription and must undertake military service of six months for university graduates and 12 months for non-graduates.

22. Mr Vural in his own submissions conceded that, as he is over the age of 41, he would not be conscripted if repatriated.  Exhibit R2 states (at the end of 3.94):

    In January 2016, the government passed a law allowing Turkish citizens over the age of 38 who had lived or worked outside Turkey for at least three consecutive years to obtain exemption from military service for TRY5680 (then AUZD1580)

23. The Tribunal concludes that, as Mr Vural is self-evidently aged over 38 and fulfils the other criterion of having lived or worked outside Turkey for more than three consecutive years, he would, on the basis of this information, be able to obtain exemption.  Mr Vural states in his written submissions that he could not afford to pay the exemption fee.  He provided evidence of mortgage payments for his residence.  It was not clear whether he still has that residence but it would seem probable that he may be able to arrange his financial affairs to pay the requisite amount, if required.  The Tribunal does not accept Mr Vural’s assertion that he would be ‘persecuted’ for not undertaking national service when he was not resident in Turkey for almost all of the period when he would otherwise have been eligible to be called up.

24. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Vural is on courses of medication for his medical conditions, as well as undergoing methadone treatment.  On balance, the Tribunal finds, given Mr Vural’s various health conditions, and that there was scant information before the Tribunal about his access to this medication and to a methadone programme in Turkey, this consideration weighs in favour of restoring Mr Vural’s visa, but only very lightly so.

CONCLUSION

1. In considering the question of whether there is ‘another reason’ that the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa should be revoked, the Tribunal must, under section 499(2A) of the Act, apply the Direction; though it is not exhaustive. One primary consideration weighs in favour of setting aside the mandatory cancellation of Mr Vural’s visa; but the other two primary considerations weigh against restoring the visa. Two other considerations weigh in favour of restoring the visa, though the majority weigh neutrally. The Tribunal does not undertake some mathematical equation in this review process, but instead must look at the overall question (taking into account the objectives articulated in paragraph 6.1 as set out above) as to whether it is satisfied that there is another reason, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

2. The Tribunal concludes that the comprehensive extent, and the seriousness of, Mr Vural’s offending over such a long period of time, together with the finding that there is a significant risk that he will re-offend, are pivotal in the conclusion that the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa was the correct decision.

   DECISION

3. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BB Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa.  

95.     I certify that the preceding 94 (ninety-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris.

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

Associate

Dated: 29 March 2019

Date of hearing:	19 March 2019
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Self-Represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Rachel Noronha Clayton Utz

APPENDIX Extracts from National Police History Check dated 21 September 2018
Court	Date	Offence	Result
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	CONTRAVENE COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER	PROVEN. TWO MONTHS IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	BREACH RE 25/07/2016 THEFT FROM SHOP (SHOPSTEAL) FAIL TO ANSWER BAIL THEFT (TWO CHARGES) COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL DRIVE WHILST DISQUALIFIED	BREACH OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER. ORDER CANCELLED. AGGREGATE THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	ATTEMPT THEFT (TWO CHARGES) THEFT	ON EACH CHARGE: FOUR MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS FOUR MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS FOUR MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	CONTRAVENE COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER	PROVEN. TWO MONTHS IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT.  EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS THREE MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	BREACH RE 28/02/2017 THEFT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE	THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS THREE MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	06/06/2018	BREACH RE 28/02/2017 COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS THREE MONTHS AS VURAL, ERDAL.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	28/09/2017	THEFT FROM SHOP (SHOPSTEAL) (TWO CHARGES) COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL THEFT OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	AGGREGATE 30 DAYS IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS 30 DAYS AS VURAL, ERDAL.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	28/09/2017	THEFT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL	CONVICTED AND A COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER FOR 12 MONTHS AS VURAL, ERDAL.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	25/07/2016	THEFT FROM SHOP (SHOPSTEAL) FAIL TO ANSWER BAIL THEFT (TWO CHARGES) COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL DRIVE WHILST DISQUALIFIED	CONVICTED AND A COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER FOR 15 MONTHS. UNPAID COMMUNITY WORK, TO PERFORM 75 HOURS OF COMMUNITY WORK. THIS CONDITION STARTS ON 25/07/2016 AND GOES FOR 15 MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	25/07/2016	CONTRAVENE COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER	PROVEN.
MELBOURNE MAGISTRATES COURT	02/06/2015	THEFT FROM SHOP (SHOPSTEAL) POSSESS ECSTASY (MDMA/MDA/MDEA/MDA’S) POSSESS DRUG OF DEPENDENCE FAIL TO REQUEST ADVICE/HAVE REGARD TO ADVICE POSSESS CONTROLLED WEAPON IN LICENSED PREMISES PROHIBITED PERSON POSSESS A FIREARM POSSESS UNREGISTERED GENERAL CATEGORY HANDGUN UNLICENSED STORE FIREARM/AMMUNITION – INSECURE MANNER DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME (SIX CHARGES) POSSESS PROHIBITED WEAPON WITHOUT EXEMPTION/APPROVAL	CONVICTED AND A COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER FOR 18 MONTHS. UNPAID COMMUNITY WORK, TO PERFORM 200 HOURS OF COMMUNITY WORK. THIS CONDITION STARTS ON 02/06/2015 AND GOES FOR 18 MONTHS.
MELBOURNE MAGISTRATES COURT	02/6/2015	POSSESS AMPHETAMINE POSSESS CANNABIS POSSESS HEROINE POSSESS CARTRIDGE AMMUNITION WITHOUT LICENCE/PERMIT	PROVEN
MELBOURNE MAGISTRATES COURT	25/03/2014	DRIVE WHILST DISQUALIFIED	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. SENTENCE IS WHOLLY SUSPENDED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991. OPERATIONAL PERIOD IS 12 MONTHS
MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT	15/02/2010	TRAFFICK DRUG OF DEPENDENCE	24 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT	15/02/2010	TRAFFICK DRUG OF DEPENDENCE	18 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 12 MONTHS CONCURRENT.
MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT	15/02/2010	TRAFFICK DRUG OF DEPENDENCE	12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. NINE MONTHS CONCURRENT.
MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT	15/02/2010	HANDLE/RECEIVE/RETENTION STOLEN GOODS	SIX MONTHS CONCURRENT.
MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT	15/02/2010	POSSESS A DRUG OF DEPENDENCE	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. TOTAL TWO YEARS, NINE MONTHS. TO PAY $6050 PECUNIARY PENALTY.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	25/01/2008	DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME (TWO CHARGES) HANDLE/RECEIVE/RETENTION STOLEN GOODS	AGGREGATE THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. EFFECTIVE STATE TOTAL TERM THREE MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	25/01/2008	POSSESS CANNABIS	WITH CONVICTION, FINED $300.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/01/2008	TRAFFICK CANNABIS POSSESS CANNABIS DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME	AGGREGATE SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. CUMULATIVE. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS SIX MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/01/2008	POSSESS AMPHETAMINE POSSESS ECSTASY (MDMA/MDA/MDEA/MDA’S)	AGGREGATE THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. CUMULATIVE. SENTENCE IS WHOLLY SUSPENDED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991. OPERATIONAL PERIOD IS 18 MONTHS. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS SIX MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/01/2008	UNLICENSED STORE AMMUNITION – INSECURE MANNER POSSESS PROHIBITED WEAPON WITHOUT EXEMPTION/APPROVAL (THREE CHARGES)	AGGREGATE ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. BASE SENTENCE. SENTENCE IS WHOLLY SUSPENDED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991. OPERATIONAL PERIOD IS 18 MONTHS. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS SIX MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/01/2008	DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. CONCURRENT. SENTENCE IS WHOLLY SUSPENDED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991. OPERATIONAL PERIOD IS 18 MONTHS. EFFECTIVE TOTAL STATE TERM IMPOSED IS SIX MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/01/2008	POSSESS AMMUNITION WITHOUT LICENCE	WITH CONVICTION, FINED $200.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	5/12/2007	POSSESS CANNABIS POSSESS AMMUNITION WITHOUT LICENCE	WITH CONVICTION, FINED AN AGGREGATE OF $500.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	5/12/2007	FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CBO	PROVEN.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	10/04/2006	UNLAWFUL ASSAULT	CONVICTED WITH COMMUNITY BASED ORDER FOR 12 MONTHS.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	10/04/2006	INTENTIONALLY DESTROY PROPERTY	WITH CONVICTION, FINED $2000. TO PAY COMPENSATION $200.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	1/07/1997	TRAFFICK CANNABIS	SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	1/07/1997	UNLAWFUL POSSESSION	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	1/07/1997	POSSESS CANNABIS (TWO CHARGES) USE CANNABIS (TWO CHARGES)	ALL CHARGES CONVICTED AND FINED AGGREGATE $400.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	12/12/1993	BREACH OF COMMUNITY BASED ORDER	CONVICTED AND FINED $200.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/09/1993	ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON (SIX CHARGES)	THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH CHARGE CONCURRENT. TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER AS VURAL, ERDAL.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/09/1993	ASSAULT POLICE (TWO CHARGES) INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY CAUSE INJURY ASSAULT BY KICKING (THREE CHARGES) INTENTIONALLY CAUSE INJURY UNLAWFUL ASSAULT	THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH CHARGE CONCURRENT. TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	21/09/1993	ROBBERY	SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. SENTENCE SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS UNDER SECTION 27 OF SENTENCING ACT.
MELBOURNE MAGISTRATES COURT	23/07/1992	KNOWINGLY OBTAIN BENEFIT NOT PAYABLE	(COMMONWEALTH) CONVICTED AND FINED $1000. TO PAY $200 COSTS. TO PAY $3649.10 REPARATION.
MOONEE PONDS MAGISTRATES COURT	02/03/1992	UNLAWFUL ASSAULT	ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT. SENTENCE SUSPENDED FOR 12 MONTHS UNDER SECTION 21 OD PENALTIES AND SENTENCES ACT.
MOONEE PONDS MAGISTRATES COURT	02/03/1992	UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WILFULLY DAMAGE PROPERTY	BOTH CHARGES COMMUNITY BASED ORDER FOR 12 MONTHS. TO PERFORM 200 HOURS UNPAID COMMUNITY WORK. TO PAY $180 COMPENSATION AS VURAL, ERDALE [SIC].
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	03/08/1989	POSSESS CANNABIS	FINED $300.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	03/08/1989	USE CANNABIS	FINED $200.
BROADMEADOWS MAGISTRATES COURT	03/08/1987	POSSESS AMPHETAMINE AID/ABET POSSESS AMPHETAMINES AID & ABET TRAFFICK AMPHETAMINE USE AMPHETAMINE	FINED $100 ON EACH CHARGE.
MOONEE PONDS MAGISTRATES COURT	17/06/1986	USE OF OTHER DRUG OF DEPENDENCE	FINED $150. TO PAY $12 COSTS.