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

[2025] ARTA 1094

XFTR and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1094 (22 July 2025)

Applicant:XFTR

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:                2025/3546

Tribunal:Senior Member Hon J Rau SC

Place:Adelaide

Date:22 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..................[SGND].....................

Senior Member Hon J Rau SC

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation of Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (temporary) visa under section 501(2) – whether the Applicant passes the character test – Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the original visa cancellation under section 501(2) should be revoked – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 – decision under review is affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES

Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348

YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466

Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311

Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 50

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 110  – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Hon J Rau SC

22 July 2025

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 12 May 2025,[1] to cancel his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (temporary) visa (“the Visa”). The Visa was cancelled on the basis that he did not satisfy the Respondent that he passed the character test, and the Respondent decided to exercise its discretion under section 501(2) to cancel the Visa.[2]

   [1] Hearing Book (“HB”), 19-49.

   [2] Ibid.

2. Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have a “substantial criminal record”.[3]

   [3] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 501(6)(a).

3. In this case, the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.[4]

   [4] Ibid section 501(7)(c).

4. The Applicant was convicted in the NSW Local Court at Liverpool of common assault (DV), contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) and stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) on 11 October 2021. He was sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment for each of the three matters, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order in the community.[5]

   [5] HB 545-559.

5. The Applicant was also convicted and sentenced on 18 December 2014 to a period of 18 months imprisonment (suspended) for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV).[6]

   [6] HB 51.

6. Either of these convictions are sufficient to engage the relevant provisions of the Act.

7. Section 501(2) gives the Respondent the discretion to cancel the Visa if the Respondent “reasonably suspects that” the Applicant does not pass the character test and, the Applicant “does not satisfy” the Respondent that he passes the character test.[7]

   [7] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 501(2).

8. The Applicant does not dispute the convictions and penalties referred to above.[8]

   [8] HB 321.

9. The Applicant’s counsel conceded in his closing remarks that his client did not pass the character test.

10. In terms of section 501(2), the Tribunal therefore both reasonably suspects, and is satisfied that, the Applicant does not pass the character test.[9]

    [9] See Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c).

11. The Tribunal must now consider whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the Visa.

12. The hearing was held on 14 and 15 July 2025 via MS TEAMS. The Applicant was represented by Mr Mark Northam of Northam Lawyers and the Respondent was represented by Ms Emma Carnell of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.

13. The Applicant gave evidence by video. He presented in a straightforward way. He did not attempt to make excuses or evade responsibility for his actions. He was, however, a very poor historian. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept, (and he did not demur from the general accuracy of), relevant contemporaneous independent records such as police fact sheets and incident reports.

14. The Applicant called his wife, Ms RS. She also generally gave evidence in a direct manner. She was very emotional about the Applicant’s present circumstances. She spoke about her need for the Applicant’s practical, emotional and financial support for her family. She stated that she had no fear of the Applicant. She gave evidence about the children who would be affected if the Applicant were to return to New Zealand.

15. There is an apparent conflict of interest between Ms RS’s currently pressing practical, emotional and financial needs on the one hand, and her assessment of the risk of suffering further episodes of family violence, at the hands of the Applicant. Her assessment that the Applicant does not pose any risk is coloured by these factors. It is also possibly the case that she has made a calculation that she is prepared to assume that risk, such as it may be. It is unfortunately not uncommon for the victims of family violence, even the victims of repeated offences, to continue to excuse the offender. Tragically, this pattern of conduct sometimes has horrific consequences.

16. The assessment of the Applicant’s future risk of reoffending is a task for the Tribunal. Ms RS’s opinion does not assist the Tribunal very much with this task.

17. The Applicant called Pastor Val Godinet. He provided character evidence in support of the Applicant. His evidence was generally consistent with the Applicant’s presentation to the Tribunal. He did not, however, know much about the detail of the Applicant’s offending history and he is in no position to provide expert evidence regarding the Applicant’s risk of reoffending. Like Ms RS, his opinion does not assist the Tribunal very much with this task.

18. The Applicant called Mr Watson-Munro, an experienced consultant psychologist. He prepared a report dated 2 July 2025 at the request of the Applicant’s legal advisers.[10] Mr Watson-Munro assessed the Applicant via a tele-health consultation. He also spoke with Ms RS.

    [10] HB 332-355.

19. Mr Watson-Munro’s evidence was helpful. During his evidence, he was made aware of the Applicant’s history of past interactions with the Respondent since 2009, and his most recent family violence offence committed on 30 June 2025. He described the Applicant as a “work in progress”. He said that if the Applicant were to return to the community, and even if he and Ms RS were to become “engrossed” in regular work with a psychologist, there would still be “likely to be further episodes of offending”. He characterised this risk of reoffending as “moderate”. He said that in the absence of the recommended treatment, the risk of reoffending would be “higher than moderate”.

20. In this context, I note that the Applicant at least expressed a willingness to seek treatment in the community but neither he, nor Ms RS, have made any concrete plans to do so.

21. The Applicant offered to call several other character witnesses, but the Respondent did not require them for cross-examination. They were, as a result, understandably not called.

    BACKGROUND FACTS

22. The Applicant was born in American Samoa on [redacted] May 1978.[11]

    [11] HB 93.

23. In 1982, the Applicant migrated to New Zealand with his family. He was 4 years old. He obtained New Zealand citizenship.[12] It is suggested in the materials, though it was not confirmed, that he also has US citizenship.[13]

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] HB 334.

24. In any event, the matter proceeded upon the agreed basis that if the Applicant were to be removed from Australia, he would be returned to New Zealand.

25. On 7 December 1993, the Applicant came to Australia following his parents. He was 15 years old. He attended year 10 and 11 in Australia but dropped out part way through year 12.[14]

    [14] HB 334, 296.

26. After leaving school, the Applicant worked in various jobs including spray painting and scaffolding.[15]

    [15] HB 335.

27. The Applicant has many siblings who live around Sydney.[16] The Applicant’s mother remarried after his father died and he has part-siblings.

    [16] HB 334, 252.

28. In 1996, the Applicant was convicted of various offences. He was a juvenile at the time of the offending and/or the resultant conviction. To avoid any doubt, I have had no regard to these offences, notwithstanding their appearance on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission print out tendered in this case.[17] In the scheme of things, they would make little, if any, material difference even if they were to be considered.

    [17] HB 50-52.

29. Police records dated 29 November 1998 state:

    “Victim: [Redacted]. POI: [The Applicant] dob: 1/5/78. About 5.35am on Sunday the 29^th of November 1998, the victim was seated on the platform level of the second last carriage at Circular Quay station on his way to Wynyard Station. He looked into the rear carriage and saw the poi and another male assaulting another male. The victim was moved into the last carriage and approached the poi and the other male and asked them to stop hittig the other male. The poi and his offsider have then turned on the victim and have begun to hit him about the head area. The victim has also had his shirt ripped, and walkman taken in the struggle. . Train guards have seen what has happened and stopped the train, then called police. . Upon arrival police have found the train locked and the poi still on the train. The initial victim of the assault has left the area prior to police arrival. On speaking to the victim [redacted] he has stated that he wishes no further police action to be taken. Police spoke to the poi and his associates, and all were searched, due to police being told that the poi was in possession of a knife. The search of the poi and associated did not produce a knife. . The poi was the spoken to and sent on his way. . The search of the poi, his associates and the train also failed to locate the walkman. . On Thursday the 3^rd December the victim [redacted] attended The Rocks police station and made a statement in relation to the matter. In that statement he stated that the poi approached him hit him in the back fo the head, then kneed him in the face causing a black eye and a 1.5 cm cut to his right eyebrow. The victim has provided a statement detailing what occurred and has intimated that he would be prepared to go to Court in relation to the matter. . Inquiries are continuing.”[18]

    [18]  HB 435-436.

30. Police records dated 13 December 1998 state:

    “About 5.35am on Sunday the 29^th of November 1998, the victim [redacted] was seated in the vestibule area of the train between St.James railway station and Circular Quay railway station. The victim was reading his newspaper when he was approached from behind by the defendant [The Applicant] and another male. . The defendant has said something to the victim, the victim can not remember what was said. The victim did not reply and was then hit on the rear right hand side of the head. The victim has then stood up and said to the defendant “Excuse me sir, what’s wrong I was reading my paper sir, what’s the problem sir?”. . The defendant has then reached out to the victim grabbed him, then kneed the victim in the head around the right eyebrow area. The victim has then fallen to the ground. The defendant has then started to punch the victim numerous times until another passenger intervened and told the defendant to stop hitting the victim. . The defendant has then begun to hit the other passenger who intervened until the train pulled into Circular Quay railway station. . As a result of being hit by the defendant the victim received a black eye and a 1.5 cm cut to his right eyebrow. He also suffered soreness around the upper torso area.”[19]

    [19] HB 436.

31. In about 1998, the Applicant met Ms RS. They were in a relationship for about 2 years before he was imprisoned. After that, their relationship ended.[20]

    [20] HB 102.

32. On 30 April 2000, the Applicant committed a violent assault.[21]

    [21] HB 79-84, 432-433.

33. A police record of that date records:

    “POI 1 - Male, Pacific Islander in appearance, 18-25 old, solid build, @5tft 10" tall with short dark wavy hair. Wearing a white sloppy joe, light coloured cargo shorts, white socks, sandshoes. . POI 2 - Female, Pacific I slander in appearance, 18-25 old, thin build, @5ft 6", with medium length brown hair in a ponytail. Wearing a baggy blue sloppy joe with dark stripes down the sleeves and a stripe across the front of the jumper. Also wearing white baggy pants. . About 1.00am on Sunday 30 April, 2000 the victim, [redacted] staggered onto plafrom one, on the north west side of Narwee Railway Station. The victim appeared to be affected by alcohol or drugs. The victim was carrying a blue bag across his shoulders. . POI 1 and POI 2 were already sitting on a bench set at this location. It appears the victim has exchanged words with POI 1. POI 1 and POI 2 both stood up. POI 2 (female) has started to walk away from POI 1 and the victim. . POI 1 has walked up to the victim and punched him to the face area, causing the victim to fall down on the platform. POI 1 has commenced kicking the victim to the head and back area. The victim laid on the ground in a foetal position. POI 1 has stomped repeatedly on the victim's head before grabbing the victim's bag off the victim. . In the meantime POI 2 (female) has walked back to POI 1 and the victim. POI 2 sat down on the same bench seat on watched POI 1 hit and kick the victim. POI 2 at one stage attempted to grab POI 1 but has then walked away on the platform. . POI 1 has then picked up the victim and threw the victim onto the railway tracks at platform one. POI 1 has picked up the victim's bag and walked away, towards the stairs at the railway station. Security cameras show the POI starting to rummage through the victim's bag. . A witness, [redacted] was standing outside the Narwee Hotel when he head screaming and swearing coming from Narwee Railway Station. Mr [redacted] saw POI 1 hitting the victim and throwing the victim on the railway tracks. Mr [redacted] ran over to the railway station platform and has attempted to pick the victim up from the tracks. Mr [redacted] together with a barman from Narwee Hotel has picked up the victim and placed him on the platform. . . Inquiries reveal the victim was thrown off the platform at 1.08am. The next train which arrived at platform one was at 1.12am. . POI 1 and POI 2 were last seen walking through the railway station tunnel, heading towards Broadarrow Road. Possibly a third female was seen walking with the POI's. . Crime Scene attended and photographs of scene obtained. Security video footage siezed, Phillips technician in attendance, digital security footage to be obtained 1/5/00 .. Victim's injuries include an acute subjural haemorrage to the right side brain, scapel and facial lacerations. . The victim admitted to nursing staff to injecting heroin about one hour and a half prior to the assault. .”[22]

    [22] HB 432-433.

34. On 23 September 2000, the Applicant committed another serious assault and a robbery.[23] He was taken into custody.

    [23] HB 433-434.

35. A police record states:

    “About 8.00pm Saturday 23rd September, 2000, the defendant [The Applicant] was arrested at the Macquarie Fields Railway Station in relation to an aggravated robbery offence. Detectives from Hurstville were notified .. About 1.00am Sunday 24th September, 2000, detectives from Hurstville attended the Macquarie Fields Police Station where the defendant was interviewed in relation to the incident on 30th April, 2000 at the Narwee railway station. . The defendant admitted being at the Narwee Railway station at the time of the assault and admitted to assaulting the victim. The defendant denied pushing the victim onto the railway tracks after the assault. The victim was rescued from the tracks by witnesses about 3 minutes prior to the arrival of a train. . The defendant was subsequently charged by virtue of a first instance warrant for attempt murder. For full facts see charge [redacted].

    …

    POI: [The Applicant], born [redacted], [redacted]. . Victim: [redacted]. Injuries - Multiple fractures of left cheekbone, severed portion of right ear, swelling and bruising to face - currently at Liverpool Hospital awaiting surgery (unable to be interviewed). . The defendant caught a train from the city and upon alighting at Macquarie Fields, he saw his brother, [redacted], exit the same train. At the time, the defendant was moderately affected by alcohol. They walked past the victim, [redacted] 53 old, who was sitting on a seat, on the platform, drinking a bottle of beer. The victim said Hello to the defendant and his brother. [redacted] kept walking and heard the defendant say to the victim, "Do you want to have a go?" The victim said to the defendant, "Back off, back off, I don't want to fight." [redacted] then walked back to the platform and pulled the defendant away from the victim. . The victim then made his way across Railway Parade, towards his home. The defendant then followed him, catching up with him, and punched and kicked the victim, the victim falling to the ground. The defendant has then smashed a bottle of beer across the victim's head. The defendant then stomped on the victim's head. [redacted] ran after his brother, grabbing him and telling him to stop what he was doing. [redacted] then walked away, whilst the defendant started rummaging through the victim's pockets. The defendant then removed the victim's wrist watch and walked across the Railway carpark, towards Saywell Road. A short time later the defendant has produced a watch and said to his brother [redacted] "Do you like my new watch." At the time, he also had blood on his shoes and pants. A number of independent witnesses viewed this incident, and when the defendant fled along Saywell Road, they followed him. By this time, the Police had been notified and attended the location. The Police then spoke with the defendant near the shops in Saywell Road . At this time, one of the witnesses who had been following the defendant, indicated to the Police that the defendant was the person responsible for the attack. The defendant was then arrested and as he was being placed into the Police vehicle, the watch he had taken from the victim, fell from his pocket onto the ground. This was recovered by the Police. At the same time, the defendant's brother, [redacted] was also detained. . An ambulance arrived at the scene, and conveyed the victim, [redacted] to Liverpool Hospital, where he was admitted and is presently awaiting surgery. The full extent of his injuries are not known, and at this time, he is not in a condition to be interviewed. He is presently suffering from multiple fractures to the left cheek, swelling and bruising to the entire face, and has a severed portion to his right ear. . Statements were obtained from numerous witnesses. The defendant and his brother were conveyed toMa cquarie Fields Police Station. As a result of inquires, the defendant's brother, [redacted] was released and a statement was obtained from him. . The defendant's clothing, which contained what appeared to be blood, was seized for examination. A blood sample was obtained from the victim, for analysis. . At the Police Station, the defendant took part in an Electronically Recorded Interview, in which he stated that he had arrived at the Macquarie Fields Railway Station, with a friend named Samuel and his brother. As they walked from the Railway Station, on their way home, the victim was swearing, and the defendant told him to stop. The victim didn't stop, so he then slapped him once to the face. The defendant stated that his friend Samuel then slapped the victim twice to the face, causing the victim to fall to the ground, bleeding. The defendant stated that [redacted] and he walked off and then four unknown persons came from the Railway Station and began jumping up and down on the victim's head. He stated he was then arrested for no reason, denying any knowledge of the watch. No other witness supports this version of events at all. In the interview, the defendant stated that during the day, he had consumed 5 schooners of beer, from 11am onwards and stated at the time of the fight with the victim, he was adversely affected by alcohol. . The defendant was then charged with Aggravated Robbery with Wounding and Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm. . The defendant currently has a 1st Instance Warrant for a charge of Attempted Murder, stemming from an incident at Narwee Railway Stat ion on 30/4/00. Detectives NEALON and JONES of Hurstville are the informants and were contacted and at the time of writing, were on their way to Macquarie Fields Police Station to interview the defendant regarding this matter. . In relation to the current charges, bail was refused. .”[24]

    [24] HB 433-434.

1. On 30 May 2001, psychologist Ms Anita Duffy wrote a report at the request of the Applicant’s then lawyers. In this she stated:

   “An older cousin introduced [The Applicant] to alcohol when he was 15 and first in Australia. He initially got drunk on beer and liked the effect. He drank with his friends and cousins and started to drink other spirits, wine “anything” just to get happy. He said even when he was in High school he drank on a daily basis. However, he particularly binged on weekends.

   After a period of trying to stop drinking when he was living with an aunt for a while, he resumed heavy drinking over the last two years prior to his arrest. He admits to having memory blackouts and sometimes becoming quite aggressive under the influence of alcohol more so than if he was sober. He says he has helped out his friends, who have been picked on by others, in pub fights but claims that he has never initiated any fights.

   [The Applicant] started to smoke cannabis also at the age of 15 through his older cousins. He said that he smoked it when available but he was not “in to it” as much as alcohol. He said at times the combination of cannabis and alcohol made him “freak out” and he would become paranoid on occasions. Although [The Applicant] was able to see the connection between his excessive alcohol intake and the offences with which he is charged, and he expressed a strong desire not to drink alcohol in the future, he also admitted that if he were approached by his friends and taken to the pub, he would soon be drinking with them. He states that he would try to remain abstinent, but at this stage has no real strategies to put this into practice. It is thought that he would require extensive relapse prevention and drug and alcohol counselling during his incarceration.[25]

   [25] HB 473-483.

2. On 17 August 2001, the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of NSW at Sydney of “maliciously inflict GBH with intent” for which he was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment and “aggravated robbery with wounding/GBH” for which he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.[26]

   [26] HB 52.

3. The Court record relevantly states:

   “HER HONOUR: The offender, [The Applicant], pleaded guilty on indictment to one count of aggravated robbery with the infliction of grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 96 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 25 years. The offender also pleaded guilty to a further count on indictment, namely on 30 April 2000 at Narwee he maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Mr AA with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm upon him. That charge for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years is pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes Act 1900.

   The circumstances of the aggravated robbery offence are as follows. On 23 September 2000 the offender and his brother alighted from a train at Macquarie Fields station. The victim, Mr J aged 53, was sitting on a seat on the platform drinking a bottle of beer. The victim said hello to the offender and to his brother. The offender then said to the victim "Do you want to have a go?” The victim said the offender "Back off, back off, I don't want to fight". The offender's brother then walked back to the platform and pulled the offender away from the victim.

   The victim then made his way across Railway Parade towards his home. The offender then followed him, caught up with him and punched and kicked him. He then fell to the ground, that is the victim. The offender then smashed a bottle of beer across the victim's head. The offender then stomped on the victim’s head, however the offender's brother interceded and tried to get him to walk away. The offender then started rummaging through the victim's pockets and removed the victim's wrist watch and walked away from the scene. A number of witnesses saw this incident and when the offender fled across Saywell Road they followed him. The police were notified and the police stopped and arrested the offender nearby.

   An ambulance arrived at the scene, conveyed the victim, Mr J, to Liverpool Hospital. The offender was taken to Macquarie Fields Police Station where he essentially denied the offence. He stated in the ERISP that four other men had jumped on the victim's head. On examination at Liverpool Hospital Mr J was found to be suffering middle third of the face fractures and a complicated laceration of the right ear. He underwent surgery and remained in hospital for a week.

   The circumstance of the other offence, that is the offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm are even more serious. About 1am on Sunday 30 April 2000 the victim, AA, walked on to the platform of Narwee railway station. The offender and a female were sitting on a seat on the station. The offender got up and approached the victim and punched him to the face causing him to fall to the ground. The offender then began to kick the victim to the head and body. Video surveillance recorded the entire episode and the video was tendered in the sentence proceedings as part of exhibit B. It portrays the completely gratuitous violence inflicted on the victim who lay apparently unconscious on the ground after the first few blows. The offender is seen stomping on the victim's head more than once. The final act was that the offender pushed the victim off the platform on to the railway tracks below and simply walked away.

   The full gravity of the offence can’t really be appreciated by the mere recitation of words but the video graphically portrays the full extent the violence inflicted on the victim. It is to be noted that the offender is a tall and strongly built young man. The consequence of the assault for the victim can only be described as catastrophic. The most recent medical report before me was dated 20 October 2000 and records that the victim was in St George Hospital until 18 May 2000. He was then transferred to the brain injury rehabilitation unit at Liverpool Hospital and on 12 June 2000 he was transferred to another unit of the brain injury service. He was discharged from hospital on 7 August 2000.

   The assessment done indicated significant memory impairment, slowing of information processing and inertia related to his brain injury from the assault. His social skills were impaired. As a consequence of the brain injury he developed emotional and behavioural difficulties and depression with features of a psychosis. He needed psychiatric intervention and medications for these problems. His prognosis was as follows:

   "He is at increased risk of post traumatic epilepsy. Further improvement may be expected, however he is most likely to have long term (for more than 2 years) impairments in the areas of emotional, behavioural and higher intellectual functions."

   Turning now to subjective considerations, the offender's date of birth is [redacted] May 1970 and he was thus one day from his twenty-second birthday at the time of the first offence and 22 at the date of the second offence. He is the eldest of six children of Samoan parents and his parents were present in court to support him. At the time of his arrest he was living with his parents. The offender left school at 17 years of age while in year 12 without attaining his Higher School Certificate and has generally been employed since leaving school until about a year before these offences when he was in receipt of unemployment benefits.

   Despite some divergence in results in the psychological and psychiatric reports I am satisfied that the offender suffers from mild intellectual retardation. I have had regard to all of the material tendered. That material establishes that the offender is illiterate and has problems with verbal communications. He undoubtedly has a problem with alcohol abuse and it is to be noted that both offences occurred when he was heavily intoxicated. I accept Mr Craigie's submission that alcohol is not a mitigating factor in this case but that it does explain to some extent the offender's conduct. He will need an extended period of supervision on his releases to monitor his behaviour.

   I have had regard to the offender' youth but the objective gravity of these two offences and considerations of general and specific deterrence demand that lengthy sentences be imposed. I take into account the pleas of guilty which were entered at the first available opportunity. The offender is entitled to a 25 per cent discount on both sentences for the utilitarian value of the pleas to the criminal justice system. I have made some further allowance for remorse of which there are some expressions in the material before me but as against that the Crown case in both matters was overwhelming.

   It has been submitted that I should find special circumstances and I accept that submission. The special circumstances are that this is the offender's first time in custody, the fact that the sentences will be partly cumulative and the necessity for an extended period on parole to foster the offender's rehabilitation. I have had regard to the principle of totality. In my view part of the sentence imposed for the offence under s 96 should be served before the sentence on the s 33 offence commences.

   Stand up please sir. In respect of the charge of robbery using corporal violence with the infliction of grievous bodily harm the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 4 years imprisonment which is taken to have commenced on 23 September 2000. The reason for the imposition of a fixed term is that any parole period would be subsumed by the second sentence. In respect of the offence of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years to date from 23 September 2002. I fix a non parole period of 7 year to date from 23 September 2002. The offender will be eligible to be released on parole on 22 September 2009. I recommend that the offender take part while in custody in vocational courses, drug and alcohol courses and anything that can foster his rehabilitation. The offender can be taken back into custody.”[27]

   [27] HB 79-84.

4. During his time in prison, the Applicant undertook various rehabilitation and vocational training courses including drug education, relapse prevention and stress management.[28]

   [28] HB 106-120, 156-182, 224-248.

5. On 4 March 2008, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant advising him that his visa was liable to be cancelled on character grounds.[29]

   [29] HB 482.

6. On 31 March 2008, the Applicant completed a personal circumstances form and made representations to the Respondent requesting that the visa not be cancelled. His representations then include the following:

   “My father kept trying to get me jobs but when I couldn’t keep them, I started to drink more and hang around the wrong crowd. I started to get aggressive, especially when I had been drinking. I felt like I was letting my family and father down. I felt very discouraged and drifted away from family values. I started to chase the fast life. This lifestyle lead me down the path to my incarceration.

   Character Reformation

   I have been in custody since 1999. I was only 21 years old at the time. This is my first time in gaol. At the time of my offence, I was very young and had been out at a party. At this time in my life I was also playing club football and was focussed on my sport and training. Besides this, my life at the time included working fixing roofs, spending time with my family and girlfriend. On the night of the offence, I had been drinking and was pretty intoxicated. On the way home from the party, I assaulted the victim and take full responsibility for my actions. I feel deep regret for my actions. I am sorry for the trauma I caused the victim and his family. I am also sorry for the negative affect of my actions on the community and any fear I caused.

   I live each day regretting my actions and trying to do everything to make sure I don’t put myself in a position where it could happen again.

   My sentence has given me time to learn about myself. I have learnt about my anger and how to control my anger, communication and how to get my message across clearly. Gaol has also taught me about standing on my own two feet and what it will take to live successfully in the community after my release. During my time in gaol, I have done a lot of programs focussing on managing my anger, drug and alcohol relapse prevention, communication skills, education, music, and courses to improve my change of getting a job when I get out. I have also included a copy of all my certificates with this letter.

   Through my drug and alcohol relapse prevention courses I have learnt about the risks and consequence of my past alcohol use. I have learnt about the physical and mental consequences of drug and alcohol use, I have learnt that my past behaviour was leading me down a dangerous road. I have made the decision to not drink alcohol in the future and I know I have to practice this decision every day. I know how to prepare myself for risky situations and how to have fun without alcohol, because I do not want to open the door to my old life.

   I have learnt a lot about myself through doing anger management classes. In the past, my anger has turned into violence and I hurt two victims. I now realise nothing is solved by being aggressive or violent and I have learnt to communicated my feelings and express myself in an effective and non-aggressive way. I realise the mistakes of my past behaviour and the hurt I have caused my loved ones, the victim and their families. I have learnt to stop and think before I act when I feel angry.

   …

   I have used my conflict resolution and negotiation skills in my job as a delegate. I believe these skills will also help me solve problems in my life in the future. I have also been the head sweeper which is a very trusted position in gaol. I have always taken my work responsibilities seriously and I’m proud of the skills I’ve learnt and used in my jobs in gaol.

   Family

   My family are very, very close. My family always support me. I also have many cousins, aunts and uncles in Australia. All of my family has supported me and visited me through my sentence. My father passed away last year. This has been the biggest shock and loss in my life. My family is still grieving the loss because he was the rock of our family. My father as always there for me and I’m sad that I will miss the opportunity for my father-son relationship with him to grow in the future. My fathers death means that as the eldest, I am now the head of my family. This is a big responsibility because my father was also a High Cheif. This role is a big responsibility in the Samoan culture. This honour is passed through the family and I am expected to carry it on.

   Since my father’s death, I have tried to support my mum emotionally, and be a father-figure to my brothers and sister. I try to uplift them and encourage them to do the right thing and be positive. This is hard while I am in gaol and that is why it’s very important for me to be with my family after my release. I need to be with my family in Australia so I can be a positive role model and help my brothers and sister stay on the right track, especially now my father is gone. My goal is to be a good father figure and brother to them when I get out. Because I’ve been in gaol since 1999, I need to re-connected with my family and I need to be in Australia to do this. Now that my father is gone, its important for me to also support my family financially.

   …

   My focus now is to complete the Voilent offenders Therapeutic Program (VOTP). I aim to learn as much as I can from the Program so that I can keep practising my anger management skills now and in the community in the future. My decision to do the VOTP was my own and from inner motivation. I have four years parole and my goal is to abide by my parole conditions.

   If I were to go back to New Zealand, I would have no supports. I know I have support in Australia but I have not grown up with my family in New Zealand and do not know them well. It would be hard for me to find a job and housing in New Zealand and I would have no future there.”[30]

   [30] HB 493-544.  

7. On 15 July 2008, the Applicant made further representations to the Respondent. In these he stated:

   “My main goal is to stay in Australia with my family, and to be a law abiding, productive member of Australian society. The way I will achieve this goal is by reuniting and living with my family when I get released. It’s very important to my family and myself for me to lead the family, and fill my late father’s shoes so my family can have a better future. My other big goal is to gain work on release so I can be a role model to my brothers, contribute to my family and support myself. I have support and connections to help me get a job when I get out and I have no intention of being on the Dole or relying on Government Benefits. I also want to enrol in TAFE courses on release so I can improve my employment opportunities.

   I am writing this letter to tell you how much I really want to stay in Australia. After being in gaol for so long, my main goal is to be reunited with my family. If I was to be returned to New Zealand, my family would be incomplete and I don’t know how my mum would cope with me being in a different country.

   I have learnt from my mistakes and have let myself and my family down. In my 8 years in gaol so far, I have tried my best to change my thinking and behaviour to make sure I do not offend again. I know there is more to life than being inside these walls and I am excited to catch up and share time with my family. I will respect your decision. Thank-you for allowing me to respond and tell you about my progress and goals. Thank-you for your consideration and time in reading my letter.”[31]

   [31] Ibid.

8. It is clear from this episode and the Applicant’s representations to the Respondent, that he actively turned his mind to, and fully understood, the likely consequences of having the Visa cancelled. He made various representations about having seen the error of his ways and how he would conduct himself in the future. This included, for example, a claim that he would not use alcohol in the future and that he had learned to “stop and think before I act when I feel angry”.

9. His conduct since that time has not been as promised. His incapacity to manage his anger in particular, is a continuing issue, right up to the present time.

10. A comparison between the Applicant’s claims and assurances in July 2008, and his later conduct, is highly relevant to the task of assessing the degree to which his present, very similar assurances, can be given any weight.

11. On 22 April 2009, the Applicant was advised that the Respondent had considered his representations and decided not to cancel the Visa. He was warned in the following terms about the possible consequences of further offending:

    “Please note that visa refusal or cancellation may be reconsidered if fresh information comes to notice or if you incur a liability on new grounds. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered”.[32]

    [32] HB 482.

12. On 27 May 2009, the Applicant acknowledged the warning.[33] As from this point at least, the Applicant can have no illusions about the possible consequences of him offending in the future.

    [33] HB 290.

13. The Applicant was in prison for 8 years. He was released from prison on parole in September 2009.[34]

    [34] HB 94.

14. Also in 2009, the Applicant started a relationship with Ms FF.[35]

    [35] HB 77, 94.

15. On 1 November 2010, the Applicant’s son with Ms FF, (Child C), was born.[36]

    [36] HB 135.

16. Police records dated 17 July 2011 state:

    “TOI: 11:01am - 11:28am Sunday 17 July 2011 .. LOI: Outside Unit [redacted]. . About 11:01am Sunday 17 July 2011, Police attended [redacted] in relation to an anonymous call advising that an intoxicated Islander male was waving around a Samurai sword and had assaulted a male. .. Upon arrival, Police observed POI 1, POI 2 (accused) and two other male persons of interest were moderately affected by alcohol and or Prohibited Drugs. .. Police informed POI 1, the accused and the other two POI 's of the anonymous call in relation to a Islander male being in possession of a Samurai Sword and having assaulted the anonymous male. .. Background enquiries were conducted which revealed that all involved were well known to Police and all parties involved consented to being searched. .. All parties involved denied any knowledge of a Samurai Sword or any assault taking place. .. All POI's were searched with one being found in possession of 0.32 grams of Heroin and a homemade razor knife (E45058254 relates). .. Police spoke with the POI found in possession of the heroin, who advised that the accused was the one swinging around the Samurai sword but refused to supply a statement. .. POI 1 was searched and a new white mobile phone was located in her purple backpack. POI 1 stated that she had purchased it yesterday from Big W, Neeta City for $50. .. POI 1 was escorted to her unit where she produced a new box from which the mobile phone came in. .. Upon returning and while continuing to conduct background enquiries and an investigation to the Heroin and knife possession, the accused began to become agitated with Police presence. .. The accused commenced yelling out, "I know my whites (Rights), Get the fuck out! Fuck off! Get the fuck out of here!" .. During this time, Police observed several occupants at the unit complex to lean over their balconies and observe the accused behaviour. .. Police warned the accused in relation to his use of offensive language several times to which the accused continued to say, "Get the fuck out of here! Fuck off! Get the fuck out!" .. Police cautioned and arrested the accused subsequently conveying him to Fairfield Police Station as an IP with intent of issuing a CIN. .. After the accused was conveyed to Fairfield Police Station, Police observed a Samurai Sword inside Unit 3, to the left of the front door. .. Police were allowed entry by the POI who was being investigated for the Heroin possession and during this time, Police located five Samurai Swors. .. Police checked the blades for sharpness and noted that all were blunt and were advised by the POI that they were for decoration only ... Fairfield 14 was contacted and attended agreeing with investigating Police that the Swords were for Display only ... The accused was later released upon displaying signs of no longer being under the influence ... CIN [redacted] for the offence of Use offensive Language issued on 21/7/2011. .. Event 45058254 linked to this event for clarity.”[37]

    [37] HB 428-429.

1. Police records dated 22 November 2012 state:

   “About 17:45 on the 21/11/2012 the VIC and the POI were at home and have had a verbal argument about the VIC not doing any cleaning or any other housework. The VIC has then walked outside to the front of the house near the nature strip where the argument has continued. The POI has previously has placed furniture on the front nature strip as rubbish for a council clean up. The argument became heated where the POI has hit a chair that was in the pile of rubbish this cause the leg on the chair to snap. The VIC has phoned police. Police attended a short time later. Police arrived and spoke with the VIC. The VIC told police the above version of events. The VIC did not wish to provide police with a statement. The VIC told police there was no threats of violence. The VIC also told police that the chair had been taken by a passer by. The VIC stated the chair belonged to the POI. The VIC does not wish for any further action to be taken by police only for a report to be taken. Police spoke with the POI who confirmed there was and argument but denied breaking any furniture. The VIC phoned a relative and arrange to stay at this relatives house to allow things to cool down. Police have offered the DV yellow card which was accepted and FA14 supervisor was consulted.”[38]

   [38] HB 427.

2. Police records dated 10 March 2013 state:

   “About 8:15pm, Saturday 9 March 2013, Police were patrolling the South Granville area, namely Clyde Street and Mona Street, South Granville as these roads are known to be used to courier drugs between the Auburn and Granville areas .. Police observed vehicle [redacted number] (NSW), travelling north upon Clyde Street, South Granville. Police observed the front passenger to look towards Police and the vehicle immediately accelerate and turn right onto Mona Street. Using all warning lights and sirens, Police pulled over the vehicle on Mona Street, South Granville for the purpose of a breath test due to the driver's manner of driving .. Police approached the driver's door and observed the Accused, [redacted name] occupying the driver's seat, [The Applicant] in the front driver's seat and [redacted name] in the rear passengers side seat. . Police submitted the Accused to a road side breath test which produced a negative result .. Police spoke with the Accused in relation to him being in the area to which he stated he had picked up one of the passengers and intended to driver to Kings Cross to perform as a [redacted] Police observed the Accused to appear nervous whilst speaking to Police. . Police conducted checks on all occupants which revealed certain information relating to prohibited drugs. . Due to the time of night, the Accused's nervousness, manner of driving, Mona Street being well known for being a route used by drug couriers, information Police had in relation to the occupants and their intention to travel to Kings Cross which is renowned for drug use, Police formed the suspicion that there were prohibited drugs in the vehicle. . Police informed the Accused and both passengers of their name, rank and station in accordance with section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and informed them that Police intended to search the vehicle for prohibited drugs.. Police searched each occupant, with nothing adverse located. Police searched the vehicle and located a plastic resealable bag, approximately two centimetres by two centimetres in size, containing an amount of white powder. This item was located under the driver's seat in plain sight. Police approached the Accused and informed him that he was under arrest for possession of a prohibited drug. Police also cautioned him in relation to the white powder and questioned him. . The Accused made full admissions to possession of the white powder, stating that it was the prohibited drug cocaine and that he had purchased it on Friday 8 March 2013. . Police issued the Accused with field court attendance notice number [redacted] and weighed the powder in front of the Accused. The white powder weighed 0.5 grams and was sealed in drug bag number [redacted]. The Accused is now charged with the matter before the court.”[39]

   [39] HB 426.

3. Police records dated 20 March 2013 state:

   “At the above time and date the per named and vic were at home alone. The per named has just returned home from work and asked the vic to make him something to eat. .. The vic has placed a pot on the oven and due to the pot being wet at the bottom it was making a noise as it was being heated. .. The per named was upset as he thought it will destroy his oven. The per named has yelled at the vic and they have had a verbal argument. .. The per named then went outside in to the back yard of the home and broke a wooden chair. Whilst at the loc police were informed that the per named owns all the property within the house and that the vic does not hold any fears as she believes the per named is under a stressful time at the moment due to the death of his father. ..”[40]

   [40] HB 425.

4. Police records dated 19 January 2014 state:

   “About 5.15 pm on Saturday 18 January 2014, the VIC and her child were at home when the P/N returned home from work. The VIC and P/N became engaged in a verbal argument when the P/N asked the VIC to look after the child whilst the P/N had a sleep. The VIC told the P/N that she was on her way out and the child was sleeping. The VIC walked out the back door when the P/N picked up a rubber ball and threw it at the back fence. The P/N did not throw the ball in the VIC's direction. The VIC woke the child, and left the premises to go to a nearby park. Upon the VIC's return the P/N had left the premises. Police obtained the following signed version from the VIC: "[The Applicant] and I had an argument. [The Applicant] was tired as he just got home from work. I was leaving with my family. [The Applicant] asked me to watch [redacted] so he could get some sleep and I said no. [The Applicant] got angry. I walked out the back door. [The Applicant] threw a ball at the fence. I woke my son up and we left. We went for a walk around the park. [The Applicant] left. [The Applicant] did not damage any property or harm me or my son in any way. I do not wish to provide police with a statement or any further information". Police offered the VIC a yellow card to which she declined. Police are yet to speak with P/N about the incident.”[41]

   [41] HB 424.

5. Police records dated 19 September 2014 state:

   “On the 19th of September 2014, the victim and the PN were at the home where they began to discuss the PN current work arrangements. The PN has been having some trouble at work lately which has been causing him stress. The PN has come home from work and began to argue with the victim about his work and some shopping arrangements regarding money. The victim and PN have began to yell at each other for a short period of time. At this time during the arguments one of the neighbours who did not wish to see police contacted police and informed them about the arguments occurring. Police attended Unit [redacted address]. Police met with the PN where they questioned him in regards to the yelling and screaming heard. The PN informed police that he did have an argument with his partner however it was okay now, police made further enquiries where the PN disclosed to police that they had been arguing over shopping and money. Police requested to enter the premises and ensure everyone was safe and no property had been damaged. Police entered the house and spoke with the victim who informed police they had been arguing regarding the PN work arrangements and money problems. Police spoke with the victim in private and asked if she had been assaulted or intimidated as she appeared upset. The victim informed police everything was okay they had just had an argument . Police explained the yellow DV card service to the victim which she agreed to sign. Police issued a victims card along with a DV referral card. Police contacted FA14 (Sgt [M]) and informed him of the situation. No offences disclosed to police.”[42]

   [42] HB 423.

6. On 4 November 2014, the Applicant was taken into custody.[43] This followed an incident of family violence involving Ms FF which is described in the following terms in the police fact sheet:

   “The accused and the victim have been in a Domestic relationship for the past 5 years, residing together at a [redacted] address. As a result of this relationship the victim and the accused have a child together who is now at the age of 4, also residing at the address. The victim and the accused have not been in any previous domestic incidents that required intervention of police and there are no current Apprehended Violence Orders between the couple.

   On Tuesday the 4th of November 2014 the victim and accused were in their bedroom talking about their personal problems and family issues. Also present in the house was the witness who was watching television in the lounge room with the victims child. As the witness was watching television she heard the victim call her name out in a panic. The witness immediately went inside the bedroom and observed the victim to be kneeling down beside a table and the accused right arm pushed up against the victim throat and his left arm in the air with a clenched fist. The witness attempted to intervene between the victim and accused, however this was unsuccessful as the accused is of a large build and was yelling "Fuck off to the victim". The witness then observed the accused take hold of the victim ankles using both his hands, dragging her off the bed causing the back of her head to hit the floor harshly. At this stage the witness was concerned for the safety of the victim and immediately began to dial 000 requesting Police assistance.

   Whilst on the phone to 000, the accused dragged the victim through the door way and into the kitchen/hallway of the house. The victim layed motionless on the floor whilst the accused continued to yell “Don't fucking lie to me" at the victim, hitting her in the head with his right fist. The accused has then used both his hands to drag the victim back into the bedroom, placing her next to a computer desk and was still motionless and looked to be unconscious. As the victim was on the floor, the accused continued to yell " Don't fucking lie to me, I know you have been talking to my nephews behind my back. Whilst saying this the accused has raised his right leg from the floor, and stomped on the stomach of the victim in front of the witness. The witness was to scared to intervene and remained on the phone to Police 000 operator waiting for Police while she continued to watch the accused, punch the victim in the face about 3 times with a clenched right fist.

   Police arrived to the incident scene within minutes. On arrival, Police observed the victim to be laying on the couch motionless. Police also observed that the victim had significant bruising to the head with a large visible lump, and not able to communicate to her due to minimal consciousness and from the pain she was in. Police were alerted to the accused who was sitting outside in the backyard on a couch. Police introduced themselves to the accused cautioning him and placing him under arrest. The accused participated in a notebook interview at the scene and made admissions to placing his hands on the victim, however failed to supply details of any assault and the extent the argument was. Police organised an ambulance to attend and convey the victim to hospital.

   Police obtained a witness statement from the witness who observed the entire incident take place. Due to the extent of the victim injuries, police were unable to obtain a statement and will do so at a later date after being treated at hospital. The accused was conveyed back to Fairfield Police station and introduced to the custody manager and entered into custody as per part 9 of LEPRA. The accused declined to participate in an electronically recorded interview in which he was offered.”[44]

   [43] HB 75.

   [44] HB 51, 77-78.

7. This incident was put to the Applicant. He did not deny it, but said that he could not remember it.

8. On 17 December 2014, the Applicant was convicted in NSW Local Court at Fairfield of “Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)”. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended upon entering a section 12 bond. He was also subjected to a period of 18 months supervision by the NSW Probation Service.[45] A DV order was imposed to protect the victim and the Applicant was ordered not to reside at the same address.[46] The victim in this instance was Ms FF.[47]

   [45] HB 51.

   [46] HB 31, 51-52, 72-74.

   [47] HB 55.

9. The Court record relevantly states:

   “HIS HONOUR: Well it is a pretty disgraceful assault that you have perpetrated on her. Really bad. And of course your record, particularly that matter where you were sentenced for many years becomes a bit disturbing. You are a very young man and you have been in custody since 4 November. In the scheme of things, the assault was terrible, really terrible. I am mindful of what has been put by your counsel and these letters that are here. What I am going to do is this.

   YOU WILL BE SENTENCED TO 18 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. I WILL SUSPEND THAT ON YOU ENTERING INTO A BOND TO BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR UNDER S 12 OF THE SENTENCING LEGISLATION. YOU ARE TO BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND ACCEPT THE SUPERVISION OF THE PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICE DURING THAT TIME.

   If you break the bond, 18 months full-time. That is what you get. Do you understand? Okay. There is a domestic violence order made, it is the mandatory terms not to assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with, not to intimidate and not to stalk. And further, you are not to reside at the address where she is. That is how it works. If the police are called for a breach, you get arrested, bail is refused. And with your background, there is only one place, full-time gaol. Do you understand? All right, thank you.”[48]

   [48] HB 75.

10. Police records dated 2 June 2016 state:

    “LOC: [redacted address] in Toyota Camry Hybrid tax [redacted] POI: [The Applicant] dob; 01/05/79 [redacted] VIC: [redacted] n INJ: soreness to face About 0135 Thurs. 02/06/16 the VIC was driving. He picked up the POI at the taxi rank at Ingleburn Railway Station, Ingleburn Road, Ingleburn. He then drove the POI to Melliodora Way, Macquarie Fields where he pulled up outside number 6. The VIC stopped the meter for the trip and it read $16.20. The POI became angry at the fare arguing that the VIC had ripped him off. The POI then punched the VIC numerous times to the head whilst continuing to abuse him. The VIC opened his door and at tempted to get out of the vehicle but was unable to do so as he had his seat belt on and was unable to release it . A vehicle has driven pass and the VIC has called for help. The male has attempted to pull the VIC from the vehicle but was unable to do so. He then got back in the vehicle he had alight and left. The mother of the POI has exited [redacted] and opened the front passenger door of the taxi and said to the POI, "Stop, stop, get out." The POI let go of the VIC and stopped hitting him. The VIC took off his seat belt and got out of the taxi. He then lent back in the taxi and hit the panic alarm before getting back in the taxi and locking the doors. After speaking with the taxi operator the VIC drove from the location. He spoke with his wife and Police were then contacted. The VIC attended Macquarie Fields Police Station and reported what had occurred. Meanwhile Police [redacted] where they spoke with the POI. He agreed it was him that caught the taxi from Ingleburn Railway and that he had argued with the taxi driver about the fare but stated in no way did he assault or even touch the VIC. POI details were obtained and he produced a NSW drivers licence. Police returned to Macquarie Fields Police station where they obtained a signed statement from the VIC and took photos of his injuries. The VIC had slight swelling to his face and stated he had soreness to his face. South Western Taxi were contacted and email sent as requested by them to obtain a copy of the footage from inside the taxi to clarify what occurred. Enquiries continuing.”[49]

    [49] HB 420.

11. Police records dated 25 June 2016 state:

    “The victim and the POI have been in a intimate relationship for over the past six years. As a result of that relationship they have one child [reacted] years old and an unborn child together. About 2:53pm on Saturday 25/06/2016 Police were patrolling platform one of Glenfield Railway Station when they heard yelling coming from the upper concourse of the station. Police have gone to the upper concourse where they have seen the POI yelling at the victim who was with their son [redacted] Police have separated the two and spoke with both parties. The PO stated he was upset as he believed the victim was having a lesbian relationship to which she denied. The victim would not tell police anything other then no threat or violence was made towards her. There was no witnesses to the incident and no injuries sighted. No AVO applied for as no fear was made to police by the victim. The victim and the POI with [redacted] have then left to watch a movie.  NFPAR except for victim follow up.”[50]

    [50] HB 419.

12. On 3 October 2016, the Applicant’s second son with Ms FF, (Child E), was born.[51]

    [51] HB 135.

13. Police records dated 21 October 2017 state:

    “The accused in this matter is [The Applicant] born [redacted] 1978 The accused lives with his partner, the victim FF at [redacted address]. The property is a rental property. They reside there with their 2 children, [redacted] 1 year old. They have been in a defacto relationship for 8 years. There has been numerous domestic violence incidents between them in the past and there has been previous AVOs. On Saturday 21st October 2017 the accused and (FF) were at their house. The 2 children were also at the house along with the victims cousin, [redacted]. About 6.30pm the victim was in the bathroom bathing their youngest child. The accused walked into the bathroom and asked the victim about his phone charger which was broken. The accused got angry and he started to yell at the victim. During the argument, the accused took hold of a free standing mirror that is in the bathroom and he smashed it onto the ground causing it to break. The victim got their child out of the bath and dried him. The accused walked out of the bathroom. Shortly after the accused asked the victim to drive her to a house in [redacted suburb], which she agreed to do. Before they left the house, the accused was standing in the kitchen and he became angry again in relation to the phone charger. The accused picked up a pile of dinner plates, bowls and cups that were stacked on the kitchen bench and he threw them onto the ground causing them to break. The accused and the victim then left the house shortly after so the accused could be driven [redacted] suburb. The victim asked her cousin, [redacted] to come for the drive with her. The children were left in the company of another person who was at the house. Once they arrived at [redacted suburb], [redacted] contacted police to report the incident of the malicious damage. Police arrived at the house in [redacted suburb] shortly after and met with the victim and the accused. The victim explained to police what had occurred and she provided a DVEC. The accused was then placed under arrest. Enquiries were made with Fairfield police who attended the home in [redacted suburb] and confirmed the damage to the property. The accused was then conveyed to Macquarie Fields Police Station where he was introduced to the custody manager and explain his part 9 rights under the Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act. The accused was offered the opportunity to participate in an electronically recorded interview which he declined. The accused is now charged with the matter before the court. During the incident the victim was not assaulted and no threats were made to her.”[52]

    [52] HB 418.

1. On 27 October 2017, the Applicant was convicted in NSW Local Court at Fairfield of Destroy or damage property (DV).[53] He was placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond under the supervision of the NSW Probation Service.

   [53] HB 51.

2. The Court record relevantly states:

   “HIS HONOUR: This is stupid behaviour. Child was there when this happened? You know what our experience is, is that if children are exposed to this sort of behaviour, when they become adults they do exactly the same thing because they have learnt how to do it. Tell me about yourself? Are you working? What are you doing?

   …

   HIS HONOUR: I am going to get you to see the Probation people. You need some straightening out. You have got to report to the Probation people within seven days, here. Macquarie Fields, that would be Campbelltown.

   …

   HIS HONOUR: Okay. I am going to put you on a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months. If you break the bond, you will go to gaol. Do you understand that?

   …

   HIS HONOUR: As far as the order is concerned, it is in place for a period of 12 months. You are not to assault, molest, harass, threaten or interfere  with, not to damage, interfere with any of the property. If police are called, you get arrested. Bail can be refused and on a conviction for a serious breach you go to gaol. Do you understand?” [54]

   [54] HB 72-73.

3. In 2017, the Applicant’s relationship with Ms FF ended.[55]

   [55] HB 94.

4. In 2018, the Applicant resumed his relationship with Ms RS. By this time, she had 4 children from a previous relationship.[56] These are FV, Child A, Child B and Child D.[57]

   [56] Ibid.

   [57] See Exhibit 11: Circumstances of Children.

5. On 3 September 2019, the Applicant’s daughter with Ms RS, (Child F), was born.[58]

   [58] HB 135.

6. Police records dated 6 November 2019 state:

   “Driver 1: [The Applicant] DOB: [redacted] Veh 1: Holden Captiva [redacted] Driver 2: [redated] On Wednesday the 6th of November 2019, Driver 1 travelled in an easterly direction on Payton Road, Roselands. Driver 1 has entered the roundabout that is at the cross of Pentland Ave at a speed of approximately 30km/h and has fallen asleep for approximately 2 seconds, waking up on making impact with VEH 2. On falling asleep, VEH 1 has continued through the roundabout, exiting the roundabout and veering onto the opposite side of the road causing the collision. The collision has caused the initiation of airbags in both vehicles. Both drivers were helped out of their vehicles by bystanders and sat on the footpath waiting for Ambulance and Police. Driver 2 was taken to Canterbury Hopsital via Ambulance. Driver 1 refused treatment and a statement was taken from him at the scene. On speaking with Driver 1, Police ascertained that he was extremely fatigued due to lack of sleep caused by his sick 7 week old daughter who he had been up through the night looking after. Police informed Driver 1 he should not have been driving a vehicle in this state, to which he agreed. Police advised they would contact and inform Driver 1 of the action to be taken against him once the state of Driver 2 was established. Alcohol testing was done on scene with a negative result . Follow up with Driver 2 to be done once treatment has been received at Hospital. Photos of the accident to be uploaded onto IMS.”[59]

   [59] HB 415.

7. Police records dated 27 March 2020 state:

   “About 8pm On Thursday the 26th of March, the victim and the POI enagaged in a verbal arugment about an unknown matter that the victim would not disclose to police. As a result of the arugment the POi has left the house to go for a walk and cool off and in doing so has taken his daughter [redacted] he shares with the victim, with him on this walk. The victim was not pleased with the POI and did not want him to take the child with him, however, there are no family court orders in place to prevent him from doing so, nor was there any reasons for concerns for the POI having the child. However, the victim has phoned police to report the POI leaving with the child in hopes of obtaining police assistances to have the child brought back. However, about an hour or so later, the POI has returned with the child and there was no further issues between the victim and the POI. About 10:30pm that evening, Police attended [redacted] responding to the incident. Police spoke with the victim over the phone as it was a secure building and police couldn't gain access. Over the phone, the victim stated that police no longer needed to attend as her child was already brought back and there was no issues, injuries or anything of concern. Police informed the victim that police still needed sight herself as well as her children to ensue this. A short time later, the victim meet police outside the building with her 5 children, who all appeared to be well and in good health. Police obtained details and asked the victim if she would like to provide police with any details on the incident to which she declined to do so stating that nothing had happened except they got into an argument but would not disclose what it was about. Police asked the victim if she would provide a statement in relation to the matter, to which she also declined. The victim stated that the POI already knew that she had called police and that there had been no repercussions due to this. The victim provided police with the POI's contact details. The victim stated that the POI did not like police and would not speak with t hem. However, Police attempted to contact the POI via his mobile phone number multiple times, however, the POI did not answer.”[60]

   [60] Ibid.

8. On 5 April 2020, an AVO was served on the Applicant for the protection of Ms RS.[61]

   [61] HB 407.

9. On 5 April 2020, whilst on bail and in violation of the AVO, the Applicant assaulted Ms RS and their 7-month-old infant, Child F.[62]

   [62] HB 72-74.

10. Police records dated 5 April 2020 state:

    “The Defendant in this matter is [The Applicant], the Protected Person is [redacted]. The parties have been involved in an intimate relationship for about two years. There is one child as a result of this relationship, 7 month [redacted]. The Protected Person has four other children as a result of a previous relationship, 13 year [redacted] old [redacted] (these children have also been listed as protected persons in this order). The Protected Person, the Defendant and the above children have formed part of the same household until recently. The Protected Person and the children moved out of the house she shared with the accused. The Protected Person and children went through a period of living in temporary accommodation, but have moved into their present address at [redacted]. The Defendant has recently started to stay with the Protected Person and the children at this address. The Defendant has problems with literacy and struggles with completing forms, the Protected Person has been assisting him completing forms for Centrelink and banks. The situation has become tense and stressed due to recent prevailing circumstances associated with the Corona Virus pandemic, there are financial pressures and the parties have found it hard with the recent lock down. Around 2:00pm on the afternoon of Sunday 5 April 2020, the accused, the Protected Person, 12 year old [redacted] were all present at unit [redacted]. The Defendant and Protected Person became involved in an argument in the living area of the unit. The Protected Person felt that he should have been concentrating in dealing with his Centrelink problems rather than downloading games on his phone. The argument between the pair, became heated and as such the two boys present left the room and went to their bedroom. The pair continued to argue and the Protected Person expressed her frustration at having to do everything for him. The Protected Person was sitting on a reclining chair with 7 month [redacted] on her chest at the time. The Defendant reacted to this by grabbing hold of the chair the Protected Person was sitting on with the child on her chest, he tipped it over. The Protected Person fell on the floor with the 7 month child on her chest. Neither the child nor the Protected Person occasioned any injury. The Protected Person told him to leave; however he did not and attempted to engage the Protected Person in conversation. The Protected Person called police. The Protected Person became extremely upset and emotional such that she wet herself. Police attended a short while after. Police spoke to both parties. The Protected Person disclosed the accused's actions as described above. The Defendant was placed under arrest and cautioned. The Defendant admitted that he and the Protected Person, had been involved in a verbal argument, in which she berated him for not filling in forms. He stated that he admitted to lifting the chair the Protected Person and child were sitting on, and described them falling back. The Protected Person provided a statement by way of an electronically recorded Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief (DVEC) interview. She disclosed the incident described above, and indicated that there had been previous incidents, one involving damage to property. The Protected Person did not fully particularise these incidents. The Defendant was taken to Liverpool Police Station, where he was introduced to the Custody Manager, who explained his rights to him. The Defendant did not participate in an interview.”[63]

    [63] HB 22-23.

11. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he remembered this incident.

12. On 4 October 2020, the Applicant’s son with Ms RS, (Child G), was born.[64]

    [64] HB 135.

13. On 12 November 2020, the Applicant was again advised that the Respondent was considering cancelling the Visa under section 501(2) of the Act.[65]

    [65] HB 291-295.

14. On 23 December 2020, the Applicant made representations regarding the possible cancellation of his visa. This relevantly states:

    “Visa Cancellation

    I have received an intention to consider visa cancellation before. However, I was able to get my visa back. This is now the second time I received a notification from the government regarding my visa cancellation.

    I admit that I did many awful things in the past, and I am sorry for all that. Every day, I try to give back to the community by being a good employee, father, and partner.

    When I was younger, I binged on alcohol and weed. I admit to partying and getting wasted, but I've stopped all that now. Especially, since l have children who look up to me.

    I try my best to be the best dad by taking them to church every Sunday, parks on weekends, movies (before COVID-19), etc. I always reach out to my kids, check up on them from time to time, and hang with them whenever I can.

    My kids are my life now. Should my visa be cancelled, that would make 8 children fatherless. I don't want to go back to New Zealand and leave my children here. How would that make me as a father?

    My siblings live here as well. I have nieces and nephews from my brothers and sisters. We all have each other's back especially now that are parents have passed away.

    My parents are buried in Australia. If I go back to New Zealand, I wouldn't be able to visit their graves ever again.

    Future

    If I'm given a chance to stay, I'll continue to work hard and support my family financially. I'll be the best father to my kids, and partner to [Ms RS]. I will try my best to avoid drinking, since most of my crime happens when I'm intoxicated.

    I'll attend to church more, and even begin community work when there's a spot available. I want to be able to give back to the community no matter what.

    I can't go back to America Samoa. I don't know anyone there. I left the country since I was 4 and never came back. I don't know its culture and tradition.

    After coming to Australia in 1993, I never left the country. I only know Australia and I consider it my only home. My family is here, my kids are here, R is here, and my work is here. My whole life is in Australia. It would be devastating to leave. I would be shattered to go back.”[66]

    [66] HB 95-96.

15. Police records dated 27 December 2020 state:

    “Police observed a white Toyota Estima bearing New South Wales registration [redacted] travelling towards them in lane 2 of 2 at well above the posted 70 kph speed limit . Police activated their warning devices in an attempt to stop the vehicle. . Shortly after the vehicle stopped and Police approached the driver/accused [The Applicant] who was accompanied by a female now known as the [redacted] seated in the centre middle row seat, with two unnamed young children in baby seats seated either side of her. Police explained the reason for being stopped and the accused produced a New South Wales P2 Provisional driver's licence number [redacted] with an expiry of 14 November 2021. The photograph on the driver's licence depicted the accused. . Police returned to their vehicle and conducted checks on the accused which returned he was on bail, and that he was named as the Defendant in 2 enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders dated from the 05 April 2020 and 04 August 2020. In both orders [redacted] was name as a Person in need of Protection. Each order had the following additional conditions: 6. You must not approach <<protected people>> or contact <<her/him/them> in any way, unless the contact is: A) through a lawyer, or E) as agreed in writing between you and the parent(s) and the person with parental responsibility for the child/ren about contact with the child/ren, 9. You must not go within 100 Metres of: A) any place where <<protected people>> <<lives/live>>, or B) any place where <<she/he/they>> <<works/work>>, or C) any place listed [redacted]. . 6. You must not approach <<protected people>> or contact <<her/him/them> in any way, unless the contact is: A) through a lawyer, or B) to attend accredited or court-approved counselling, mediation and/or conciliation, or C) as ordered by this or another court about contact with child/ren, or D) as agreed in writing between you and the parent(s) about contact with child/ ren 9. You must not go within 100 Metres of: A) any place where <<protected people>> <<lives/live>>, or B) any place where <<she/he/they>> <<works/work>>, or C) any place listed here. Police returned to the accused and confirmed with him that he was on Bail, and that he was aware of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders that were in place. The accused agreed, but stated that they were going to church and that the orders were being contested in Court. Police had the accused exit the vehicle were they placed him under arrest and cautioned him. . The accused was conveyed to Fairfield Police Station were he was introduced to the Custody Manager and read and explained his rights under Part 9 of LEPRA. The accused was offered the opportunity to take part in a Electronic Record of Interview of a Suspected Person, which declined. . The accused was fingerprinted, photographed and charged with breaching the Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders he was named in as a Defendant.”[67]

    [67] HB 409.

16. This was put to the Applicant. He said that he didn’t really recall the details, but they were on their way to church. He said that he thought it had something to do with his license.

17. On 12 January 2021, the NSW Local Court at Liverpool imposed a 6-month Community Correction Order on the Applicant for breaching a then current AVO.[68]

    [68] HB 51.

18. On 2 March 2021, Police records state:

    “About 9am on 2nd March 2021 the accused and victim were together at [redacted] preparing to attend Liverpool Local Court to have the current apprehended violence order amended. The victim informed the accused that she was intending to have a coffee with her sister in Liverpool prior to attended court which upset the accused. The victim and accused began calling each other names before the accused said "dont make me got their. I will put a bullet in her head" The victim retreated into a bedroom and the accused left the address. Police were called and arrived a short time later. Police were given the above version of events which was obtained via a Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief. During this recording the victim stated the accused has been staying at her address ever since the order was served upon him however she has never called Police reported the breach. About 10:30am the same day the accused attended Liverpool Local Court where Liverpool Police identified him and placed him under arrest. He was cautioned and escorted to Liverpool Police Station where he was introduced to the custody manager. He was read his rights under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The accused was given the opportunity to participate in an electronic record of interview which he declined. The accused is now charged with the matters before the court.”[69]

    [69] HB 408.

19. The Applicant contravened prohibition/restriction in AVO when he threatened Ms RS.[70]

    [70] HB 51.

20. On 13 April 2021, the Applicant’s driver’s license was suspended.[71]

    [71] HB 400.

21. Police records dated 28 July 2021 state:

    “The accused in the matter [The Applicant]. On the 15th of June 2021 the accused appeared before Liverpool Local Court in relation to charge H74441076 for Common assault (DV)-T2 and H78983938 for Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2 and Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). The accused was given strict bail conditions including to report to the officer in charge of Bass Hill Police Station everyday between the hours of 8:00am and 8:00pm until the 11th of October 2021 when the matter returns to court. On Tuesday the 27th of July 2021 the accused did not attend Bass Hill Police Station and as such is in breach of his bail. The accused is now charged with the matter before the courts. ************* To be arrested unless a reasonable excuse is provided BH81 CHAU/BROWNE.”[72]

    [72] HB 406.

22. On 11 October 2021, the Applicant appeared in the NSW Local Court at Liverpool. He was convicted of 3 family violence related offences, being Common assault(DV), Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO(Domestic) and Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic).[73]

    [73] HB 51, 53-71.

23. The Sentencing remarks relevantly state:

    “[Mr Applicant], take into account these very serious matters. You’ve got a bad history, and this is a very light penalty in respect of these matters. What I can’t – I can’t tell you, the police might appeal against this, because it’s such a light penalty, but I’M SENTENCING YOU TO GAOL FOR TWO YEARS ON ALL THREE OF THE MATTERS, THE SAME PENALTY ON EACH ONE OF THEM, BUT THAT SENTENCE WILL BE SERVED IN THE COMMUNITY. You’ll be able to go home, you’ll go through that door this afternoon. If you breach it, you don’t – it’s like an old – the old good behaviour bond, you use to come back to the Local Court. You don’t come back here. You go to the parole board, and if you breach it, they'll give you two years gaol.

    And then mostly what will happen, they'll give you three quarters in, so you go in for probably 18 months, but not here. In the parole board. They're hard people to deal with in the parole board. There's a condition and the condition is that you above strictly by the terms of the apprehended domestic violence order. Secondly, what you've got to do, you’ve got to contact them before 4 o'clock tomorrow. You've got to ring them up. They're too busy to see you, you've got to ring up, tell them who you are, and that's a condition of the bond.

    ACCUSED: ..(not transcribable)..

    HIS HONOUR: A condition of the gaol sentence. I just want to make sure I've written that one on each one of the separate matters. You've got to contact them by 4 o'clock tomorrow, because you mightn't be able to get through today. It's the same condition on all three. You made your pleas of guilty today on 11/10/21. All right. Do the paperwork downstairs. I can't emphasise to you, and I'll tell you again, if you breach it, you'll go into custody. The parole board will - you won't come here. So I'll give you that sentence. It's two years. So if you get through one year and 11 months and two weeks, and you breach it, you still come back for two years. So it's hanging over your head. You've got - those matters and now finalised.

    Now, I turn to the apprehended domestic violence order. You have a seat. And, RS, would you like to come down. Could you sit over there please, just sit up the back there. Yeah. All right. I don’t want to..(not transcribable)..first. Can you just take it down while we're talking.

    [Ms RS]: Yeah.

    HIS HONOUR: Now you've put in a - you've lodged an application.

    [Ms RS]: Yeah.

    HIS HONOUR: And what you're saying in your application, I want conditions 6 and 9 deleted, if I remember correctly.

    [Ms RS]: I think that's the - I was told that's the only ones that I can vary. Because I actually haven’t seen them the AVO people.

    HIS HONOUR: And, there's - so the - the current order—

    [Ms RS]: Yeah.

    HIS HONOUR: Everyone - it's always number 1. I'll just - yeah, no, it's one six and nine. Number 1 is an order that [The Applicant] not assault or threaten you, not stalk harass or intimidate you, not damage any of your property, and that's number 1. That's all, on every apprehended domestic violence orders.

    [Ms RS]: Yeah, yeah.

    HIS HONOUR: Sensibly, the police have said that they wanted an order and there has been an order in place up until now, that he not approach you or the - anyone - any of the children, I think, two of the children are his or something along that, that's right, isn’t it, yeah? And last, that he not go within 100 metres of where you live and on here it's recorded as [redacted]. You want those two matters removed, yes? And the prosecutor oppose that. Are you prepared to give evidence on oath now in this Court?

    [Ms RS]: That I want to vary?

    HIS HONOUR: Yeah.

    [Ms RS]: Yeah. Okay.

    HIS HONOUR: Come up here then. Come up to the witness box. You're going to make an oath, yeah? And my court officer will swear you in to make an oath here. Make an oath on the bible that means.

    [Ms RS]: Yeah. Yeah.”[74]

    [74] HB 53-71.

1. Ms RS sought to assume blame for this incident being reported to police. She suggested that she had overreacted. The fact remains, however, that the Applicant did destroy property when enraged, over what seems on the face of it, to have been a trivial issue. Ms RS was sufficiently distressed by this at the time to call emergency services.

   Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2

2. This Primary Consideration weighs very heavily in favour of the cancellation of the Visa.

   Primary Consideration 3: Ties to Australia

3. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:

   (1)Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

   (2)Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

   a)    how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

   i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

   ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

   b)    the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

4. The Applicant came to Australia as a 15-year-old.

5. He has lived in Australia for 31 years.

6. Ignoring his juvenile record, he first offended when he was a young adult, about 5 years after first arriving here. He has continued to offend, in various ways, ever since. This is set out in detail above. His most recent offending was only 2 weeks ago.

7. The Applicant has numerous close family members in Australia who are citizens, permanent residents or otherwise authorised to remain here indefinitely. These include his wife Ms RS, his children, stepchildren,[107] siblings, step siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews.[108]

   [107] Discussed in more detail under Primary Consideration 4, but see HB 135.

   [108] HB 138-139.

8. His parents are deceased, but he has a paternal aunt here.

9. The eldest of Ms RS’ children, FV, is now an adult. He lives with his father, her former partner.[109]

   [109] Exhibit 11: Circumstances of Children.

10. The rest of her children are discussed in more detail under Primary Consideration 4 below. I repeat those observations to the extent that they are relevant in this context.

11. One of the Applicant’s minor children with his former partner, Ms FF, lives with him and Ms RS. The other lives with his mother, Ms FF.[110] Again, the detail of this is discussed further in the context of Primary Consideration 4.

    [110] Ibid.

12. The Applicant’s now wife, Ms RS, says of him:

    “I am a stay home mum to two of my children who I had with [The Applicant], my son is [redacted] (3) and my daughter [redacted] (4). I have four other children from my ex-partner and two step children from [The Applicant], making that eight children between the two of us and they are all of our kids. [The Applicant] and I have known each since 2016 and started a domestic relationship in 2017. We got married in December in 2021 and we currently live at the above address since November 2023.

    [The Applicant] is an excellent dad to our children. If [The Applicant] was to be deported it would cause a huge grievance upon myself and our children. My two youngest kids will suffer immensely from [The Applicant]'s absence which could cause serious emotional and psychological distress for them as they won't understand . [The Applicant] has two other children [redacted] (13) and [redacted] (7) from his ex-partner and they come over every weekend from Friday after school to Sunday. If [The Applicant] was to be departed I most likely won't see [redacted] and [redacted] as they are not my biological children. They will miss the opportunity to grow and see their siblings. They will also miss out on the support that [The Applicant] will provide to them as a father and the monarch of our family.

    We live in a property in [redacted] and the rent is $780 per week. Feeding a household of six to eight children and two adults cost around $600-$700. I am only a Centrelink payments and get $880 from Centrelink on parenting payments and I also get the family tax benefit of $1200. Our living expenses are large and without [The Applicant]'s financial support my children and I could become homeless or we would be separated. My four children will live with their dad and myself and two youngest children will possibly go into a refugee or couch surfing. I would possibly face discrimination being a single mum with income.

    Looking after six-eight children of mine will be stressful and have an affect on my mental health. I commemorate all the single parents out there, especially with the increase of living expenses. My eldest son will most likely take on the role of a father figure for my two youngest kids which he shouldn't have to do as it's not his responsibility, but I will require his assistance because I won't have any support. My children will miss life experiences with their dad [The Applicant] and they are the ones that will truly suffer if [The Applicant] got deported.

    Throughout the years that I have known [The Applicant] he has been a real family man, not only to our kids but also to his five younger siblings. He was a pillar of support, strength, and comfort for his siblings when their dad passed away in 2007 . Two years later when [The Applicant] was released from prison he took on the responsibility to run the household. He paid for utility bills, rental payment, and groceries for the family. The family suffered another significant loss in 2019 when [The Applicant]'s mum passed away from lung cancer. Exactly a year later [The Applicant]'s step dad passed away in 2020. The [The Applicant] family have had significant losses throughout their lives. They are very supportive during the process of gathering documentation for [The Applicant]'s deportation hearing.

    [The Applicant] is remorseful for what he has done in the past, he has paid for the consequences of his actions and continues to pay them by paying compensation still to his victim from the crime he was convicted for in 1999 - 2010. He deeply regrets the decision he made that night. He missed important life events with his parents and his siblings. He was in prison when his dad passed away and within the Samoan culture being present during the preparation of a funeral is highly looked upon by elders, priests, & extended family members. He was only granted one day to attend the funeral of his father on compassionate grounds, he wasn't allowed to attend the church service or the wake after the funeral. He was only allowed to be at the burial.

    I beg that you take into consideration how myself, our children, and [The Applicant]'s siblings will suffer with his physical absence. [The Applicant]'s deportation not only affects him. I am confident to say and know that if [The Applicant] gets granted to stay and become an Australian Citizen that he will not be a threat to Australia or its people.

    I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular, and I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of 4 years.”[111]

    [111] HB 197-198.

13. I accept that Ms RS is reliant upon the Applicant for emotional, practical and financial support for her and the children sharing their home. I accept that she, and the relevant children, would all be distressed and disadvantaged in practical and financial respects, if the Applicant were to return to New Zealand.

14. Of course, if the Applicant were to commit further acts of family violence, the risk of which is at least moderate, he may cause further physical or emotional damage to Ms RS and the children.

15. I note that the Applicant has lived apart from Ms RS and the children at times. Both the Applicant and Ms RS told the Tribunal that he moved away for a prolonged period for his job. At one point he was living in Lakemba. The Applicant said that he may have lived away from the family for as much as a year in about 2022. A police report dated 26 March 2020 tends to corroborate a history of separation.[112] He continued however, to assist them financially.

    [112] HB 403.

16. The Applicant also has extensive connections to Australia through his extended family and friends. These include, nieces, nephews, step-sisters and brothers and their partners, aunts, cousins, cousins in law, as well as friends and other community connections.[113]

    [113] HB 41-42.

17. The Applicant has had some periods of gainful employment that have been a positive contribution to the community, however, his extensive criminal history and lengthy periods of incarceration weigh against him.

18. The Applicant has letters of support from community members including his church pastor.[114]

    [114] HB 212-223.

19. The Applicant undoubtedly has many strong connections to the Australian community. The issue here is balancing these against other factors.

20. The Applicant came here at the age of 15, having spent most of his formative years in New Zealand. The Applicant’s positive contributions, such as they have been, are dwarfed by the adverse impact that he has had on our community. The lifechanging impact of his violent assault on a total stranger is extremely serious.[115] This was reflected in the lengthy sentence of imprisonment that he received. He has repeatedly committed acts family violence against 2 partners. He has even exposed his own young children to family violence. His most recent episode of family violence was only 3 weeks ago.

    [115] See HB 82-83.

21. This Primary Consideration still weighs in the Applicant’s favour, but it is considerably diminished by the gravity of his overwhelmingly negative impact on the Australian community over more than 2 decades.

    Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3

22. This Primary Consideration weighs against cancellation of the Visa

    Primary Consideration 4: The best interests of minor children in Australia

23. Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the Visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.

24. Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:

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

    b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;

    c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

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

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

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

    g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;

    h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.

25. The relevant minor children in Australia are:

    (a)Child A is the Applicant’s stepson, the child of Ms RS and her former partner. He is aged 17. He will turn 18 in January 2026.[116]

    (b)Child B is the Applicant’s stepson, the child of Ms RS and her former partner. He is aged 15.[117]

    (c)Child C is the Applicant’s son, the child of his former partner Ms FF. He is aged 14.[118]

    (d)Child D is the Applicant’s stepdaughter, the child of Ms RS and her former partner. She is aged 12.[119]

    (e)Child E is the Applicant’s son, the child of his former partner Ms FF. He is aged 8.[120]

    (f)Child F is the Applicant’s daughter, the child of Ms RS. She is aged 5.[121]

    (g)Child G is the Applicant’s son, the child of Ms RS. He is aged 4.[122]

    (h)Child H is Ms RS’s nephew. He is aged 16.[123]

    [116] HB 40.

    [117] Ibid.

    [118] HB 255.

    [119] Ibid.

    [120] Ibid.

    [121] Ibid.

    [122] Ibid.

    [123] HB 338.

26. Ms RS is raising 6 children on her own, being Child A, B, C, D, F and G.

27. Child A, B and D are Ms RS’ children with her former partner. She says that she has full custody of them and that they receive little support from their biological father. She says that at least for the last 7 years, since she resumed her relationship with the Applicant in 2018, he has been a constant father figure in their lives.[124]

    [124] HB 103-104, 196-197.

28. The Applicant says in his personal circumstances form dated 12 June 2024 that he is a “father to all his children, including minor children and stepchildren”. If his visa is not restored, “the children will not have access to their father and may not be able to access the support they received from (the Applicant). The children will be compelled to grow up without their father and this may impact them, especially the minor children negatively. The children may not be able to have access to the lifestyle they have now as the applicant’s income and financial contribution will not be there and this may result in significant hardship for the children”.[125] The Applicant also says that he cares for the children daily and has a strong bond with them. If his visa is not restored, he will not be able to look after their well-being.[126]

    [125] HB 258.

    [126] HB 260.

29. These submissions are clearly focused on the children in Ms RS’ care.

30. Child A will turn 18 early next year. He has provided a letter of support to the Applicant.[127] He spends time during the week with his biological father.[128]

    [127] HB 213.

    [128] Exhibit 11: Circumstances of Children.

31. Child B lives with Ms Rs and the Applicant. The Applicant has been present in his life since he was about 10 years old. The Applicant has spent some time away from Child B when he moved away from home for work. If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would live with Child B. Child B will turn 18 in about 3 years.

32. Child C primarily lives with Ms Rs and the Applicant. He is the Applicant’s biological son with Ms FF. The Applicant has been present in his life since he was born, but the evidence is unclear about when he came to live with Ms RS and the Applicant. Child C has been exposed to acts of family violence perpetrated by the Applicant against his mother and Ms RS., as set out above. The Applicant spent some time away from Child C when he moved away from home for work. If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would live with Child C. Child C will turn 18 in about 4 years.

33. Child D lives with Ms Rs and the Applicant. The Applicant has been present in his life since he was about 5 years old. The Applicant has spent some time away from Child D when he moved away from home for work. If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would live with Child D.

34. Child E lives with his mother Ms FF.[129] He is the Applicant’s biological son with Ms FF. The Applicant has been present in his life since he was born, but he is not involved in day-to-day parenting. The Applicant separated from Ms FF when Child E was an infant. Child E has been exposed to acts of family violence perpetrated by the Applicant against his mother as set out above. Child E has stayed with the Applicant and Ms RS on weekends.[130] If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would not live with Child E.

    [129] See Exhibit 11: Circumstances of Children.

    [130] HB 196.

35. Child F is the Applicant’s daughter with Ms RS. But for the Applicant’s time away from the home for work, she has lived with the Applicant and her mother. Child F has been exposed to family violence as set out above. If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would live with Child F.

36. Child G is the Applicant’s son with Ms RS. But for the Applicant’s time away from the home for work, he has lived with the Applicant and his mother. Child G has been exposed to family violence as set out above. If the Applicant were to return to the community, he would live with Child G.

37. In the case of Child H, the Applicant gave no evidence about him. He was only mentioned in passing in a report from Mr Watson-Munro.[131] Ms RS told Mr Watson-Munro that the Applicant had encouraged Child H to complete his apprenticeship.[132] The Applicant has never performed a parental role and there is no direct evidence regarding the nature or extent of this relationship.

    [131] HB 338.

    [132] Ibid.

38. If Ms RS were to wish to relocate to New Zealand with the Applicant, she would have to engage with her former partner to obtain consent, or obtain a Court Order, to remove Child A, B and D from Australia. In the case of Child A at least, no such consent or Order would be required as from early next year.[133]

    [133] HB 40; Exhibit 11: Circumstances of Children.

39. In the case of Child C and E, the Applicant would have to engage with his former partner, Ms FF, to obtain consent, or obtain a Court Order, to remove Child C and E from Australia. Child E lives with his mother in any event, so this would be most unlikely.

40. In the case of the 2 youngest children, Child F and G, no issue of permission from a third party arises.

41. If the Applicant was returned to New Zealand without the children, his contact with them would at least initially, be limited to electronic means and possibly the children visiting him there. There would undoubtedly be some practical and legal difficulties in Ms RS relocating to New Zealand with the children.

42. The Applicant could however continue to provide financial support, if he obtained work in New Zealand.

43. The Applicant’s role as a father figure generally has been far from ideal, although he has shared parental functions and provided financial support. He has exposed children to family violence. He has been the subject of AVOs. He is yet again subject to an AVO after his most recent episode of family violence on 30 June 2025.[134]

    [134] See HB 545-558.

44. I accept that the Applicant has a genuine desire to be a contributing parent, as discussed above, for his children. This, however, must be balanced against his record as a parent over many years.

1. If the Applicant has indeed seen the error of his ways and is able to control his anger and violent outbursts, he may be a positive role model in his children’s lives. I do not however, have much confidence that this would be the case. His most recent episode of family violence on 30 June 2025, suggests that he will continue to offend. The opinion of Mr Watson-Munro, referred to above, is guarded.

2. If the Applicant returns to his past behaviour, there is a serious risk that he may inflict at least emotional harm on his children and/or others exposed to him. He would be a negative role model.

3. In my view, as discussed above, there is a real risk of further poor behaviour by the Applicant. This, along with his history of exposing children to family violence, seriously detracts from what might otherwise be a significant factor weighing in his favour.

   Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4

4. Having regard to all of the above, Primary Consideration 4 weighs only moderately against cancellation of the Visa.

   Primary Consideration 5 – The Expectations of The Australian Community

   The relevant paragraphs in the Direction

5. In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.

6. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

   (a)acts of family violence; or

   (b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;

   (c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;

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

   (e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

   (f)worker exploitation.

7. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

8. Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:

   This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.

   248.Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[135]

   [135] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.

9. Paragraph 8.5 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.

   Analysis – Allocation of Weight to Primary Consideration 5

10. Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:

    a.the Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B; and

    b.the other matters set out above, in particular the Applicant’s continuing record of family violence.

    Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5

11. Primary Consideration 5 weighs heavily in favour of the cancellation of the Visa.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

12. It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.

    (a) legal consequence of the decision:

13. No protection claims have been raised in this case.[136]

    [136] HB 191.

14. I accept that if the Applicant is not successful in these proceedings, he will be liable for detention and removal from Australia. This would be an adverse outcome, but one common to all unsuccessful applicants in similar proceedings.

15. This Other Consideration (a) is neutral

    (b) Extent of Impediments if Removed

16. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

    (a)    the non-citizen’s age and health;

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

    (c)    any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.

17. The Applicant is aged 46. He says that he has various physical conditions. These include asthma, eczema and sleep apnoea.[137] The Tribunal has not been provided with any specific supporting evidence expert evidence.

    [137] HB 142.

18. The Applicant has claimed that he has an intellectual disability. There is no expert evidence to support this claim or explain how this may manifest itself in practical terms. It is clear that he has some literacy issues. I note however the observations of Judge Hock that he suffers from “mild intellectual retardation”.[138]

    [138] HB 82.

19. I note that the Applicant told a prison psychologist on 1 December 2006 that “his impulsive maladaptive behavioural outbursts were a representation of his limited skills in expressing anger/frustration and strong emotions.” He was referred to “OS&P for participation in managing emotions”.[139]

    [139] HB 165.

20. The Applicant is somewhat familiar with New Zealand. He lived there from the age of 4 until he was 15. His claimed poor literacy skills may add to his difficulties in reestablishing himself in New Zealand. He does have work skills however, for example as a scaffolder, that could be applied to obtain employment in New Zealand.

21. The Applicant says that he has “no family members or support networks in New Zealand”.[140]

    [140] HB 261.

22. This is not quite accurate. In his evidence before the Tribunal, he said that he had cousins and an aunt in New Zealand. These are family on his father’s side. He said that his brother keeps in touch with them. I accept that the Applicant has had minimal ongoing contact with his relatives since he moved to Australia. That does not mean that they would not assist him, if need be.

23. The Applicant was born in American Samoa, he has no connections there. It remains unclear whether he is a US citizen. In any event, these proceedings have been conducted on the basis that he would be going to New Zealand if the Visa was not returned.

24. Overall, the linguistic and cultural differences between Australia and New Zealand are relatively minor. As a citizen of New Zealand, the Applicant would have access to the same social, medical and/or economic support as is available to any other citizen. These services are generally comparable to those available in Australia.

25. These services would be available to assist him with readjustment and to manage his history of alcohol abuse and anger management. Likewise, he could obtain support with literacy and psychological services. He could also get assistance for his sleep apnoea, eczema and asthma. He would be able to access employment, medical and housing services.

26. There is no doubt, however, that the Applicant would find the transition back to life in New Zealand, after so many years away, stressful and difficult. The Applicant would suffer emotionally from the separation from his wife and children.

27. This Other Consideration (b) weighs against cancellation of the Visa.

    (c) Impact on Australian business interests

28. There was no evidence on this topic so this Other Consideration is neutral.

    CONCLUSION

29. It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.

30. Primary Consideration 1 weighs heavily in favour of cancellation.

31. Primary Consideration 2 weighs very heavily in favour of cancellation

32. Primary Consideration 3 weighs against cancellation.

33. Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately against cancellation.

34. Primary Consideration 5 weighs heavily in favour of cancellation.

35. Other Consideration (a) is neutral.

36. Other Consideration (b) weighs against cancellation.

37. Other Consideration (c) is neutral.

38. I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.

39. In coming to my decision, I have had regard not only to the discussion of each Primary and Other Consideration set out above, but also to all the background facts that precede that discussion. For the sake of brevity, not every background fact has been repeated in that discussion.

40. The Applicant has clearly demonstrated long term connections to the Australian community.

41. He has lived here for most of his life, since he was aged 15.

42. All his immediate and extended family and friends are here. His removal would cause him distress. Ms RS and their children would suffer distress, and a loss of financial and practical support.

43. The Applicant performs, or at various times has performed, a custodial parental role in respect of several children as detailed above. This has however been intermittent. Even in the case of the youngest 2 children, Child F and Child G, he has lived away from the family home for a prolonged period.

44. The Applicant has virtually no connection to New Zealand and would undoubtedly suffer great difficulties in reintegrating into New Zealand society.

45. On the other hand, the Applicant has demonstrated a long-standing contempt for the laws of this country. He has permanently, seriously damaged the quality of life of at least one of his innocent victims.[141]

    [141] HB 79-84.

46. He has committed serious acts of family violence against 2 different domestic partners, over many years. He has offended in the presence of children.

47. If there were no other factors to be considered, and the pattern of family violence was receding into the past, the decision in this matter may be more finely balanced.

48. But this is not the case. The Applicant has reoffended as recently as 30 June 2025.[142]

    [142] HB 291-295.

49. There is also yet another factor which significantly changes the evaluative process in this case.

50. The Applicant has been given the benefit of a favourable decision by the Respondent once before. In 2009, his submissions in support of retaining his visa were accepted. These submissions were accompanied by representations about his reformed character and his future conduct. These submissions were strikingly similar to his current submissions in this matter.

51. The Applicant was written to again by the Respondent on 12 November 2020.[143]

    [143] HB 293-297.

52. He again made submissions in reply giving assurances about his future conduct.[144]

    [144] HB 93-96.

53. He continued to reoffend, nevertheless.

54. The Applicant was written to again by the Respondent on 15 May 2024.[145]

    [145] HB 484-488.

55. He offended again as recently as 30 June 2025.[146]

    [146] HB 545-558.

56. He has ignored explicit judicial warnings. He has breached bonds and AVOs.

57. I am not persuaded that the Applicant has the requisite intent or capacity to make good on his promises. He has had many chances to do so in the past, and he has conspicuously failed.

58. The consequences of the Applicant reoffending would be at least very serious. The tolerance to be shown, is at best minimal.

59. The risk of him reoffending, given his record and his past unfulfilled representations, I assess as at least moderate.

60. If he and Ms RS were not to commit to ongoing community-based treatment, the risk of reoffending is even higher. There is no evidence of any such commitments having been made.

61. In all of the circumstances, the Applicant presents as an unacceptable risk of reoffending.

62. In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the cancellation of the Visa.

    Decision

63. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and one (301) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

...........................[SGND]...........................

Associate

Dated:	22 July 2025
Date of hearing:	14 and 15 July 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Mark Northam, Northam Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Emma Carnell, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ANNEXURE A – LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Hearing Book
2	Applicant	Various Character References and Statements
3	Respondent	Circumstances of Children

ANNEXURE B – APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Liverpool Local Court	24/07/2024	Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended – 1st off	CONDITIONAL RELEASE ORDER W/O CONVICTION: 6 MONTHS
Liverpool Local Court	11/10/2021	Common assault (DV)-T2	INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER: 2 YEARS
Liverpool Local Court	11/10/2021	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER: 2 YEARS
Liverpool Local Court	11/10/2021	Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2	INTENSIVE  CORRECTION ORDER : 2 YEARS
Liverpool Local Court	12/01/2021	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER: 6 MONTHS
Fairfield Local Court	27/10/2017	Destroy or damage property (DV)	BOND S9: 12 MONTHS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE
NSW Waverley Local Court	16/11/2016	Drive, licence suspended under s 66 Fines Act - 1st off	BOND S10: 12 MONTHS
NSW Fairfield Local Court	17/12/2014	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2	IMPRISONMENT: 18 MONTHS SUSPENDED ON ENTER BOND S12: 18 MONTHS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE
NSW Court Of Criminal Appeal Court	27/06/2002	Aggravated robbery with wounding/GBH-SI	ORDERED THAT: LEAVE TO APPEAL BE GRANTED APPEAL BE DISMISSED
NSW Court Of Criminal Appeal Court	27/06/2002	MALICIOUSLY INFLICT GBH WITH INTENT	ORDERED THAT: LEAVE TO APPEAL BE GRANTED APPEAL BE DISMISSED
NSW Sydney District Court	17/08/2001	Aggravated robbery with wounding/GBH-SI	IMPRISONMENT: 4 YEARS
NSW Sydney District Court	17/08/2001	MALICIOUSLY INFLICT GBH WITH INTENT	INDICTED FOR: IMPRISONMENT: 11 YEARS
NSW Sutherland Local Court	09/10/1997	Be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner-T2	FINE: $500 COSTS -COURT: $51
[redacted court]	[redacted]/1996	[redacted offence]	[redacted court result]
[redacted court]	[redacted]/1996	[redacted offence]	[redacted court result]
[redacted court]	[redacted]/1996	[redacted offence]	[redacted court result]
[redacted court]	[redacted]/1996	[redacted offence]	[redacted court result]