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

[2023] AATA 2338

ZTFH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 2338 (11 July 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2020/0554

Re:ZTFH  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Rebecca Bellamy

Date of decision:               11 July 2023

Date of written reasons:         1 August 2023

Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 24 January 2020 is set aside and substituted with a decision that pursuant to section 501CA (4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

........................................................................
Senior Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Global Special Humanitarian visa – where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 – where receiving country is South Sudan – where substantial risk of indefinite detention – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R Bellamy

1 August 2023

1. The Applicant is a 34 year old citizen of South Sudan who came to Australia on a Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa in 2004 when he was 15 years old. His mother and his seven siblings live in Australia. His visa was cancelled due to his criminal offending. He asked the Tribunal to revoke that cancellation.   

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

   ·the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) on the basis of paragraph (7)(c); and

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

3. Under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person does not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act relevantly provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. In May 2018, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and 14 days, therefore he has a substantial criminal record. While the Applicant was serving his sentence, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) mandatorily cancelled his visa because he did not pass the character test and he was serving a full time custodial sentence.

4. The Applicant made written representations to the Respondent requesting revocation of the cancellation of his visa (“revocation request”). Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act which provides:

   The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

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

   (b)the Minister is satisfied:

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

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

5. In January 2020 the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Respondent’s decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act. A differently constituted Tribunal affirmed the decision in 2020 that decision was found to be affected by jurisdictional error. The matter was re-heard on 27 and 28 March 2023. The Applicant gave evidence via videoconference. His mother, three sisters and one of his brothers also gave evidence. The Tribunal received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.

6. The Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act and he does not pass the character test. The sole issue for determination by this Tribunal is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. If there is, I should set aside the original decision.[1]  

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

7. Following the hearing, I was provided with a transcript of the sound recording of the hearing. The sound recording, and these written reasons, provide a more accurate record than the transcript of what was said and who said it.   

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

8. In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) applies.

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

   ·Being able to remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

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

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

   ·Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non­citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.

   ·In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not revoking a mandatory cancellation.

10. Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:

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

11. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must consider. They are:

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

    (2)family violence;

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

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

    (5)expectations of the Australian community.

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

    a)legal consequences of the decision;

    b)extent of impediments if removed;

    c)impact on victims; and

    d)impact on Australian business interests

13. Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

    BACKGROUND, OFFENDING AND INCIDENTS IN PRISON AND DETENTION

14. The Applicant is the second oldest of nine children. He came to Australia in 2004 when he was 16 years old. It is unclear what became of his father: he either passed away or disappeared when the Applicant was very young. The Applicant has no memory of him. His mother worked hard to raise the Applicant and his siblings. He had a rather interrupted education due to instability in Sudan. He worked to support the family in Egypt between 11 and 13 years of age. His poor English made it hard for him to engage in his final years of education in Australia. He worked in manual labour reasonably consistently since the age of 19, with some periods where he was reliant on social security. His older brother died in a car accident in 2011. South Sudan became independent that year and there has been civil unrest and war there since 2013. It was agreed, and I am satisfied on the evidence, that South Sudan is the receiving country in the event that the Applicant is deported. The Applicant’s mother, three younger brothers, four younger sisters, four nieces and three nephews all live in Australia.

15. The documentary evidence contains records of alleged criminal offending and proven criminal offending, along with alleged incidents in prison and immigration detention. Where I am not satisfied that a certain allegation is made out, because of deficiencies in the evidence or a plausible explanation provided by the Applicant, I have not necessarily mentioned that allegation in these reasons. 

16. The Applicant started offending in 2006, around two years after arriving in Australia. Between 2006 and 2019 he committed several offences of a relatively minor nature, including public nuisance, possession of dangerous drugs (marijuana), enter enclosed land without lawful excuse and stealing-type offences for which he received small fines. He also committed some offences involving violence or aggression. In 2009 he was given a nine-month good behaviour bond for an affray, which he thinks relates to a fight in which he intervened because his brother was being attacked with a machete. He recalled his brother being stabbed in the back. In October 2013, the Applicant was given a 12-month good behaviour bond for common assault. There are not any details of that offence in the evidence before me, but the non-custodial penalty suggests that it was not a serious assault.

17. In late 2011, the Applicant’s oldest sibling, his brother “D”, died. D, as the eldest male in the family, had been a father figure to his siblings, and his death devastated the Applicant’s family. According to the Applicant’s family members, the Applicant and his mother took D’s death particularly hard. The Applicant’s behaviour changed significantly: he associated with anti-social people and abused alcohol. I note that the Applicant was committing minor offences before D’s death, but the more serious offences occurred afterwards.     

18. In November 2014, the Applicant was remanded in custody for breaching his bail on a charge for a domestic violence common assault. A week later he was sentenced to time served for the breach of bail. For the assault he was given another 12-month good behaviour bond. The factual basis of the conviction is not apparent from the materials before the Tribunal. The Applicant claimed that his girlfriend at the time was drunk and making a lot of noise. They were in Sydney, but she was not from Sydney, and he did not want to leave her drunk in a pub, but she refused to go home with him. He motioned to slap her but did not actually slap her. He did not think he caused her to feel fear. Nearby undercover police though he had slapped her. She told the police and the court that he had not slapped her, however an Apprehended Violence Order was issued, and it appears that the Applicant pleaded guilty to assault. A finding of guilt for assault could be based on the Applicant striking his girlfriend or causing her to apprehending that he was going to strike her. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant did not slap his girlfriend, but I think it likely that the purpose of motioning to slap her was to make her afraid that he would slap if she did not go with him.       

19. In November 2015 the Applicant committed a serious assault. According to the remarks of the Judge who ultimately sentenced him, he was at a party with several other young men who were from the (former) Sudan, who had all consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication. The Applicant was “quite intoxicated”. A dispute arose between the Applicant and victim because the Applicant thought the victim made a derogatory comment about his mother. The Applicant struck the victim to the side of the face with a glass bottle that was in his hand. The victim was treated in hospital for a 3cm laceration to his face, which was not life threatening. The learned Judge said the injury did not appear to have caused any longstanding problems. It is not apparent whether the Judge was only referring to physical problems. I think it would be unusual if an attack like that did not cause some sort of long-term psychological impact. The Applicant was acquitted by a jury of wounding with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm, and instead he was convicted of the alternative charge of wounding the victim, reckless as to causing actual bodily harm. In 2018, the Applicant told Dr Bennett (who provided a psychological report for the purpose of the sentencing proceedings) that he had not meant to hit the victim, only to scare him. In any event, he acted recklessly, and he did hit the victim. In the hearing the Applicant recalled that he got into a fight with someone at a party but did not remember the details.[2] It appears that the Applicant sometimes experiences poor memory due to intoxication.[3]

    [2] Transcript, page 12 line 20.

    [3] Exhibit A2: Forensic psychological report authored by Stephanie Bennett, page 6.

20. In May 2017 he was remanded in custody for that attack. In February 2018, a syringe, an improvised electrical sparking device and a bolt were found in his cell. According to the Applicant, another inmate gave him a tattoo gun to mind, and he did not know it was contraband.[4] 

    [4] Transcript, page 12 line 38.

21. In May 2018, after being convicted of reckless wounding, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and 14 days with immediate release on parole. The Applicant committed some minor property offence while on parole which resulted in his parole being revoked. In March 2019 he was returned to prison, and in April 2019 his visa was cancelled. 

22. The Applicant has been involved in several incidents in immigration detention. In August 2019, he kicked and threw a plastic chair from his room. He then tried to instigate a fight with guards and threw a punch at a guard. He seemed to be intoxicated. The Applicant did not dispute this.

23. In December 2019, the Applicant got into a verbal altercation with another detainee who he claimed called him a “black dog”. He chased the detainee around the courtyard and punched him several times to the face.[5] The Applicant recalled that incident, and said he punched the detainee because he called him a “big black dog”.[6] He conceded that it was not an acceptable response but argued that it was not acceptable to be called a big black dog. He said if he could withdraw his response, he would.

    [5] Exhibit R2, page 10.

    [6] Transcript, page 14 line 31.

24. In February 2020, the Applicant and another detainee damaged a glass sliding door with a plastic chair. The Applicant claimed he did not break anything and that in fact there was a big fight involving Sudanese detainees because one of them was being bashed and he and some others went to rescue him.

25. In February 2021 there was a physical altercation between several detainees in which attending officers saw the Applicant swinging a sandwich maker around which appeared to hit another detainee.[7] The Applicant denied having hit anybody and claimed he swung the sandwich maker in defence of his friend who the other detainee was trying to stab with a knife. There is no mention the incident report of a knife or of anyone claiming there was a knife. The Applicant said the other detainee must have hidden the knife when officers came but he could not explain why, if that was the case, he was still wielding the sandwich maker at that point. I find the Applicant’s account implausible, and I do not accept that there was a knife involved. There is not a description of an injury in the incident report, and it does not appear that any action was taken that would suggest an injury was sustained. I find that the Applicant was involved in a fight, which he did not necessarily start, in which he swung a sandwich maker at another detainee without making contact.  

    [7] Exhibit R2, page 16.

26. In March 2021, an item was found during a search of the room the Applicant shared with another detainee. It was described in the incident report as a piece of fencing wire with a clear plastic handle, placed inside a shoe on top of the wardrobe. The Applicant claimed ownership.[8] In the hearing, he claimed it was made of wire that he cut from a toaster cord, there was not a plastic handle, and that the purpose of the wire was to light cigarettes as they were not allowed to have cigarette lighters. He indicated that the wire was soft, not rigid, and he had put it in his shoe to hide it from guards. It was pointed out on the Applicant’s behalf that it is not apparent whether the authors of incident reports actually witnessed the incidents recorded or whether the reports are first-hand or even second hand hearsay, and this calls their reliability into question. I accept that as a general proposition. However, in this case the implement could have simply been described as a shiv found in a room, but it and its location were described in specific terms which suggests that the person who made the report either participated in the search or was given precise information by a person who participated in the search.

    [8] Exhibit R2, page 18.

27. I do not accept that soft wire from an electrical cord could have been misdescribed as fencing wire (which is rigid) with a clear plastic handle. I find that there was a shiv in the Applicant’s room. Having made that finding, I note that the Applicant has been in immigration detention since 2019 and there are no reports of him ever having used a shiv, had a shiv on his person, or having threatened to stab anyone. I make no finding about why the Applicant had a shiv in his room.            

28. In April 2021 the Applicant was among a group of detainees who became loud and were pushing back at Emergency Response Teams who were conducting room searches. The Applicant claimed that one detainee who was intoxicated and shouting was put down and guards stepped on his neck, so he and others tried to push them away to protect this detainee. He suggested the guards were trying to kill the detainee. I find it implausible that the Applicant truly believed guards were trying to kill, as opposed to restrain, a detainee and I reject his explanation. 

29. In August 2021, 55 suboxone strips were found in incoming mail addressed to the Applicant. The Applicant claimed he did not know who sent the parcel and he had no knowledge of it. The Applicant’s legal representatives out forward evidence that in Villawood detention centre, guards arranged for drugs to be smuggled in. The Respondent did not challenge this evidence but pointed out that this incident occurred in a different detention centre. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that guards could have arranged this delivery with the intention of intercepting the suboxone without the Applicant ever knowing about it. I think this is a plausible explanation and without stronger evidence of the Applicant’s involvement, I am not prepared to accept that he had anything to do with the parcel.   

1. According to an incident report, in November 2021 the Applicant and two other detainees were fighting. Another 16 detainees got involved. The detainees were described as being intoxicated. Property was damaged. The Applicant did not comment on this in the hearing. As it is not disputed and does not seem implausible in the context of the Applicant’s overall behaviour in detention, I accept the report as accurate.  

2. A few days later, the Applicant threatened to smash the windows of his compound if he was not moved to a different dorm. He did not deny this in the hearing, and he added that he merely used that threat so the officers would listen to him.[9]

   [9] Transcript, page 29 line 40 to page 30 line 33.

3. In December 2021, a detainee was being was being removed from a compound during a Response Code Black. The Applicant interfered in that process and was described as presenting as a threat to officers. The incident report does not contain details of the interference or threat presented. The Applicant could not recall the incident.

4. In January 2022 an incident report recorded that the Applicant displayed “unusual aggressive behaviour in the compound, he appeared to be under the influence, another detainee attempted to console him, to whom he was non-compliant and became abusive, he then headed to a group of six detainees and abused them”. The report noted that the abuse was not directed at any particular detainee but seemed more attributable to his intoxication.[10] The Applicant did not recall that incident either. When he was asked about it, he conceded that sometimes when he is intoxicated, he forgets what he has done.[11]  

   [10] Exhibit R2, page 57.

   [11] Transcript, page 34, line 1 to 13.

5. In March 2022 a group of detainees had hung a makeshift sign on a fence. It said “torturing refugees and ABF inhumane treatment.” When officers came to examine it, the Applicant said “You better not touch that shit, there is more to come” and “fuck off” or words to that effect.[12] The Applicant recalled that incident and denied that he told officers to “fuck off”. Still, I am satisfied that he said something vulgar.

   [12] Exhibit R2, page 60.

6. Around a week later, security footage showed a detainee passing an item through a gap in the fence to the Applicant, and the Applicant walking away to another fence line and passing something to another detainee, “M”. M then unwrapped the item, appeared to tear off a small piece, and passed the torn segment back to the Applicant. The Applicant then put something into his mouth before walking away from the fence line. M’s mobile phone was later found to contain a small strip of Suboxone. In the hearing, the Applicant denied having passed anything through the fence or having put anything in his mouth. Given the security footage and the suboxone being found on M immediately afterwards, I am satisfied that the Applicant passed suboxone from one detainee to another and that he consumed a small amount himself. 

7. In August 2022, an incident report recorded that the Applicant verbally abused a member of the catering staff and banged his fist against a servery screen. He then swore at an officer who had told him to behave himself. He continued to speak abusively saying things like “Now give me some fucking chicken” and he threw his tray towards the member of catering staff, which could have hit her if not for the screen and the angle at which the officer was standing. After being offered beans, the Applicant said “I don’t want fucking beans. I want chicken” and “I fucking hate this bitch, bro, she always fucks me around. Why does she need to be like that?”.[13] In the hearing the Applicant said he slapped his hand on the table but did not bang on the serving screen. He explained that the catering staff member had told him to grab his food rather than passing it to him which made him angry and that he later apologised to her. I accept that the Applicant felt frustrated and upset at what he perceived to be recurring, aggravating behaviour from that member of catering staff. However, his response was not appropriate. When asked about his aggressive behaviour generally, he said “…thinking too much all this stuff and someone like do something to you …that’s why I get angry…and I know that my behaviour is not all right, I know that it’s not right to talk like that to people…”[14] He described it as false behaviour due to his stress and frustration over being incarcerated and separated from his family. I accept that he has been in a stressful, isolating situation for a long time and it is not conducive to optimal behaviour when provoked. However, I also note that he used aggression to solve problems when he was in the wider community. 

   [13] Exhibit R2, page 69.

   [14] Transcript, page 39 line 5 to line 9.

8. In September 2022 around six litres of home brew was found in the Applicant’s room and he claimed ownership of it. In the hearing he said it was not his and he lied to protect his roommate. The Applicant conceded that he had consumed alcohol on a different occasion, in March 2022, to celebrate a detainee’s birthday.  He denied having been involved in making it.

9. In December 2022, CCTV footage captured another detainee punch the Applicant hard in the stomach twice. The Applicant staggered backward and clutched his stomach. There is no mention in the report of the Applicant retaliating. I am satisfied that he chose not to respond with aggression on this occasion.

   PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

10. Paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The Direction provides that “serious conduct” includes behaviour or conduct that does not constitute a criminal offence.

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

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

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

12. The following relevant types of behaviour are prescribed by the Direction as very serious (without limiting the range of conduct that can be considered very serious):

    ·     violent and/or sexual crimes;

    ·     crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; and

    ·     acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed.

13. Further, I should have regard to the following relevant matters regarding the Applicant’s offending:

    ·     the sentence imposed by the courts;

    ·     the frequency of the offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; and

    ·     the cumulative effect of repeated offending.

14. The Applicant was involved in an affray, defending his brother. He motioned to slap his girlfriend in an effort to force her to go home with him. I am prepared to accept that he did that because he was concerned for her safety. These are violent offences so, by their nature, they are very serious. However, the actual conduct involved was at the lower end of the range of seriousness and it is relevant that the Applicant was motivated to help his brother who was being attacked and to protect his girlfriend. The way he went about those things was wrong, however it was not gratuitous or predatory violence. The offence against the Applicant’s girlfriend appears to come within the definition in the Direction of family violence as she was his intimate partner at the time and I am satisfied that by motioning to slap her, he engaged in behaviour to coerce or control her in that moment. While family violence is very serious by its nature, this instance of family violence is relatively.     

15. The reckless wounding offence, where the Applicant smashed a glass bottle on the victim’s face, is very serious whichever way it is looked at. It was pure chance that the victim suffered a small cut rather than the loss of an eye or other very serious injury. I take into account that the Applicant caused the injury recklessly rather than with intent, and that his attack on the victim was not premeditated or sustained. 

16. I do not consider the balance of the offences to be serious and the sentences imposed reflect that. The Applicant offended multiple times since 2006, although given the time span, his offending could not be considered frequent. There was a general trend of increasing seriousness, and the cumulative effect of his repeated offending was that he caused physical or financial harm to several members of the Australian community.          

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

17. The Government considers that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk of it being repeated is unacceptable.[15]

    [15] Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction.

18. The following factors are relevant on a cumulative basis:

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

    (b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non- citizen re-offending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.[16]

    [16] Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.

19. The harm from repeated minor offending such as petty shoplifting and public nuisance is of minor concern for present purposes. The harm that is of real concern is the physical and psychological harm that results from serious violent offending. Should the Applicant smash a glass on a person’s face or something similar, it could well result in severe, permanent physical and/or psychological harm. Further coercive behaviour in the context of a familial relationship, if it is repetitive, is likely to result in psychological, social, and emotional harm to the victim.

20. In term of the likelihood of further violent offending or family violence, I do not have the benefit of a current risk assessment from a suitably qualified expert. However, in 2018 Dr Stephanie Bennett, psychologist, provided a psychological assessment for the purpose of the sentencing proceedings for reckless wounding.[17] She observed that in the Applicant’s formative years he had been exposed to trauma, adversity, poverty and loss that most people in Australia would find difficult to imagine, and that this had necessitated him living his life in “survival mode”.  She opined that the Applicant’s exposure to community violence (he frequently saw people killed in the Sudan) may have caused him to internalise violence as a coping strategy for dealing with conflict. He had no consistent formal education where he could have learned more complex communication strategies, including assertive communication and problem solving in interpersonal situations. She recommended psychological counselling, including cognitive behaviour therapy and trauma counselling, and pharmacological treatment.  

    [17] Exhibit A2: Forensic psychological report authored by Stephanie Bennett.

21. The Applicant told Dr Bennett that he first consumed alcohol when he weas 16 years old and that he used it to avoid experiencing distressing emotions. On one occasion his sister drove him to a hospital to seek help for him, but he was discharged with a referral for drug and alcohol counselling which he did not attend due to a belief that psychology is only for people who are not “normal”. He told Dr Bennett that he copes with feelings of anger and irritability by being alone. Just prior to being sentenced for the reckless wounding offence the Applicant had a girlfriend who introduced him to methamphetamine. He started using that drug every fortnight, although he did not like it. That relationship ended.

22. Dr Bennett opined that because of the Applicant’s difficulty regulating his emotions, and propensity to react to conflict with violence, the correctional environment would not be conducive to him developing more suitable self-regulation and emotional regulation skills. Rather it could entrench physical aggression as a self-defence mechanism. Further, in custody the sequela of trauma would not be explored, addressed or managed. 

23. Dr Bennett’s evidence is generally consistent with the totality of the evidence. Furthermore, her predictions have come to pass, with the Applicant not having access to trauma counselling in custody, and several incidents of aggressive behaviour in immigration detention. I accept the contents of her report as an accurate assessment of the Applicant at the time it was produced.          

24. The Applicant used cannabis, methamphetamine and alcohol in the community, although it appears that he was dependent only on alcohol. His violent offending in the community occurred in the context of alcohol consumption and conflict. While he was initially unwilling to engage in psychological intervention, in the last couple of years, he has engaged in a drug and alcohol course and a stress management course. He has recently accessed mental health support in immigration detention through the International Health and Medical Service and participated in an anger management course.

25. While in immigration detention, the Applicant has continued to break rules, consume alcohol, and engage in aggressive behaviour which included verbally abusing staff, attempting to punch a guard, actually punching another detainee, swinging a sandwich maker at a detainee and hitting infrastructure with plastic chairs. His aggression all seems to be reactive or fuelled by alcohol.

26. The reactive nature of his aggression is consistent with Dr Bennet’s assessment of him, and he showed some insight into what contributes to his aggression in his evidence before the Tribunal. 

27. The Applicant asked for a second chance, although he had already had plenty. He wants to prove himself to his family and be there for them. He said he will engage in rehabilitative courses and see a counsellor about his aggression. He also wants to engage in drug and alcohol intervention. The Applicant is confident that his family will help him, and he intends to finish his mechanics course if he is released. He understands the consequences of further offending on his visa status and he fears either indefinite detention or removal to South Sudan, although these fears have pressed on him for quite some time.   

28. It was submitted on the Applicant’s behalf that his behaviour in detention does not necessarily mean he does not have prospects of rehabilitation in the wider community given his reduced capacity to cope with conflict and stress in a custodial environment. I accept that. I am cognisant that in immigration detention the Applicant does not have employment or a stable, safe living environment which are generally accepted as being protective factors. It is likely that he will have these protective factors in the community. He had them to some extent previously when he was offending, although he was not always living in the family home[18], some of his siblings were still children and therefore less able to influence his behaviour, and he experienced periods of unemployment. He lacks the initiative to seek out rehabilitation supports that are available to him now, such as prosocial detainees who can guide him or online alcoholics anonymous meetings, although I accept that the internet connection is poor on Christmas Island where he is currently accommodated. He will have access to treatment in the community and he will have the support and encouragement of his large, close-knit family.

    [18] He told Dr Bennett he lived in Sydney for a period while his mother lived in Newcastle.

29. The Applicant’s mother and some of his siblings provided written and oral evidence to the Tribunal. There are all employed, studying or doing both, except for his mother who had to stop work due to a medical condition. Some are raising children. They appear to be responsible and law abiding. On the whole their evidence was balanced and credible. They provided context in terms of the Applicant’s difficult, traumatic childhood and the impact D’s death had on him, without seeking to excuse or trivialise his criminal behaviour. They described the contribution the Applicant has made to the family in terms of his care for them and the help he gave their mother, before his incarceration. In my estimation, they are very impressive people, especially when one considers the hardships they endured before coming to Australia. I am satisfied that they genuinely love the Applicant and sincerely want him to live like they do. If the Applicant is released, he will live in the family home with his mother and four of his adult siblings, none of whom consume alcohol.

30. The Applicant’s brother, “Mr P”, is a machine operator at a dairy. His employer is aware of the Applicant’s circumstances and is prepared to interview him for a position. Mr P thinks that, as the Applicant is a “pretty big bloke”[19], he would be good at batching (mixing bulk ingredients) or stacking pallets. He will support the Applicant and do whatever it takes to help him.

    [19] Transcript, page 72 line 40.

31. The Applicant’s mother encourages him to pray and change his life. According to her, he cries, saying, “I wish I listened to you.”[20] She will “not give up” and “talk to him all the time”.[21] She thinks that when they talk now, he sounds different, “like his voice is grown-up. He talks like somebody that is going to change”. [22]

    [20] Transcript, page 95 line 44.

    [21] Transcript, page 96 line 8.

    [22] Transcript, page 96 line 10.

32. The Applicant’s sister, “Ms K”, intends to encourage him to see a therapist, and if he still feels like he wants to drink, the family have discussed residential rehabilitation for him. Another sister, Ms “M”, intends to help the Applicant with his resumé and help him get into TAFE classes. A third sister, Ms “Y”, believes the Applicant is more self-aware now, and he regrets his past behaviour.

33. The Applicant has previously lived a reasonably prosocial life as an adult so that lifestyle is not unfamiliar to him. I am satisfied that, with the Applicant’s family encouraging him and making their expectations of him clear, he will make a genuine effort to reform. Accordingly, there is real potential for him minimise his risk of recidivism in the community. However, that has not yet happened: there currently is a risk of relapse into alcohol abuse and low-level violent behaviour. There is, a risk that he will engage in serious violent behaviour like reckless wounding, however I assess that risk as being quite low given he has only done it once before and that was eight years ago.   

34. Taking into account my findings about the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal and other serious conduct, and the risk of harm he currently poses to the community, this Primary Consideration carries significant weight against revocation of the cancellation of his visa.  

    FAMILY VIOLENCE

35. The Government has serious concerns about allowing non-citizens who engage in family violence to remain in Australia. The Direction indicates that the Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.

36. The Applicant’s assault on his former girlfriend in 2014 was a very mild example of family violence and it is unlikely to have caused her any harm. The Applicant readily described what he did and accepted responsibility for it. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has engaged in any other acts of family violence. There does not appear to be any unaddressed need for rehabilitation specific to family violence. I do not think it appropriate to allocate more than negligible weight to this Primary Consideration.      

    THE STRENGTH NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. I should also consider the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with persons in that category and give more weight to the Applicant’s ties to children in that category. Some of my analysis under this Primary Consideration also applies to the next Primary Consideration, the Best Interests of Minor Children.

2. In addition, I should consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties the Applicant has to the Australian community. That includes how long the Applicant has been resident in Australia, whether he has contributed positively to the Australian community in that time, whether he lived here during his formative years and whether he started offending soon after arriving.

3. The Applicant spent the last of his formative years in Australia. He started offending around two years after he arrived here although those were quite minor offences. Having arrived in 2004, he has spent around 14 years in the wider Australian community, and the balance in prison or immigration detention. 

4. The Applicant has a history of employment throughout his time in Australia. There is no evidence of any volunteer work or involvement in community groups.

5. The Applicant has a large immediate family and some nieces and nephews. They all have the right to live indefinitely in Australia. I accept that he has close, loving relationships with his mother and siblings.

6. According to the Applicant’s family, he helped raise his siblings by taking them to and from school, minding them while their mother was at work, and helping with housework. He spent time talking with his siblings and helping with their homework. Even after D died and the Applicant started abusing alcohol and spending less time at home, he visited frequently to check on his family and to help his mother. As the eldest remaining son, he is the one who listens to his siblings problems and gives advice. His mother would like the Applicant to be available to help her as she is getting old and her health is not good. She suffers from diabetes and she was recently hospitalised due to a hernia. She also has back pain and issues with her thyroid and blood pressure. The Applicant is very close to his mother and they speak daily. He intends to help her when he is not working.

7. I accept, based on evidence from the Applicant and other members of his family, that his mother struggles with depression because of the death of D and she has deteriorated and become withdrawn due to the Applicant being in detention. She has already suffered the loss of one son and she has, for some time now, faced the prospect of the Applicant being deported to a country she considers to be very dangerous. 

8. Mr P speaks with the Applicant nearly every day on the telephone. He relies on advice from the Applicant about issues that arise in his life. He mentioned that their youngest brother, being in his 20s, is going through a rebellious phase and the Applicant is the only family member who can get through to him. That brother lives in the family home. Mr P has a toddler and a baby. The toddler sometimes stays with the Applicant’s mother for two or three days. The Applicant sees these children on video calls but they are not able to talk.

9. Ms K is employed and she lives with her three year old son T. At the time of the hearing, T’s father was looking after him fortnightly and a baby daughter was due in June 2023. Ms K and the Applicant are in weekly contact. The Applicant speaks with T every couple of weeks. It is important to Ms K that her children know the Applicant, however she acknowledged that she would not think that way if the Applicant went back to abusing alcohol. She believes him when he tells her he will not return to his previous lifestyle.

10. D had three daughters by two women. One lives with her mother and does not have any contact with the Applicant’s family. The other two, who are aged 10 and 15, live with their mother interstate and they spend school holidays with the Applicant’s mother. The Applicant speaks with them every week or two.

11. Ms M works two jobs, while Ms Y works two jobs while she studies psychology. Despite their workloads, they both speak with the Applicant every few days. 

12. The Applicant’s family has coped for four years without him in the community. However, I accept that, by virtue of birth order and D’s death, he occupies an important position in his immediate family. He is expected to be a father figure of sorts, with associated responsibilities and expectations. For many years, including when D was alive, the Applicant assisted in the parenting of his younger siblings and helped his mother around the house. His younger siblings have turned out well, and although his ability to contribute to his family is currently limited, he does contribute by taking an interest in their lives, offering advice that they find valuable and helping them to keep their youngest brother on the right track. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s absence has had a negative impact, emotionally and practically, on his siblings and that his continued absence would have a continuing negative impact. I am satisfied that if the Applicant returns to the community, he will live in the family home and it is very likely that he will assist his mother and the family unit as a whole. If he is not released, his mother and other family members will not benefit from that assistance.  

13. There is no evidence that the Applicant’s absence has caused any of his nieces or nephews hardship or trauma of any kind or that his continued absence would. However, I accept that if he does not get his visa back, it means that they will not have the benefit of a loving uncle in their lives.       

14. The Applicant has lived more than half of his life in Australia, having come here as a teenager and spent some of his formative years here. He has strong, enduring ties to his mother and siblings. It is very significant that the Applicant’s and his family’s hope that he will meaningfully contribute within his family if he is given his visa back is not merely aspirational: he did that before, for many years, proving that it is in his character to look after his family. I am satisfied that a negative decision will significantly impact his immediate family and, to a lesser extent, three nieces and three nephews.

15. This Primary Consideration weighs moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. I have not allocated more than moderate weight because the Applicant started offending soon after arriving in Australia and his contribution to the Australian community, outside his family, is limited. 

    THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

16. The Tribunal must determine whether a non-revocation decision is or is not in the best interests of a child (under the age of 18 at the time) affected by the decision.[23] The Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration.

    [23] Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.

17. The Applicant does not have children of his own. The children of his siblings all have at least one parent fulfilling the parental role. He has an existing relationship with two of D’s daughters who live interstate, although his contact with them has been limited to occasional visits and regular phone calls. As he intends to live with his mother, he will be closely involved in the lives of D’s two daughters when they visit for school holidays. He has no contact with D’s other daughter and there is no prospect that the situation will change. He appears to know T, but they have very limited contact. The other niece and two nephews are too young to have developed any meaningful relationship with him. The parents of these young children are keen for the Applicant to be a part of their lives. 

18. There is no evidence that the Applicant’s absence from these children’s lives has or will cause them trauma or hardship. However, there is significant potential for him to play a positive role as their uncle for many years to come, especially for the very young children. If the Applicant remains in detention he will have the same limited contact with these children as he does now, and if he is returned to South Sudan it is unlikely that he could keep up that level of contact. 

19. The best interests of the children mentioned above cumulatively weigh in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa but only to a limited extent.

    THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

20. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, it is expected that the government will not allow the non-citizen to remain in Australia.[24] Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction provides the following guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined:

    “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.”

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

21. This approach is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185.

22. The Applicant has breached the trust of the Australian community by repeatedly offending while here on a visa, including while on parole. His offences include a serious violent offence, and his repeated offending indicates a lack of respect, over several years, for the laws regulating the community that he seeks to re-enter. Having said that, most of his offending was relatively minor, and I accept Dr Bennett’s assessment that the Applicant had a reduced ability to self-regulate and that the violence he routinely witnessed growing up may have internalised violence as a way of solving problems.   

23. Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.  

24. I now turn the Other Considerations.  

    LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION

25. The Applicant claims that he would be at real risk of serious or significant harm if he were to be removed to South Sudan, which it was agreed is the receiving country. Australia’s interpretation of its international non-refoulement obligations is found in s. 36 of the Act and the relevant definition provisions.

26. The Applicant was born in Khartoum which is in the current Sudan although his family is from what is now South Sudan. He speaks Dinka and Arabic,[25] and it was apparent in the hearing that he has a reasonable grasp of English. These are commonly spoken languages in South Sudan. He said he does not know anything about South Sudan, and he does not know anyone or have any family, there. His mother’s remaining family in South Sudan consisted of just one sibling, her sister with whom she has lost contact. She became quite emotional when explaining that she had tried in vain to find out if her sister is still alive. I accept that she cannot contact her sister and does not know what has become of her.

    [25] According to what he told Dr Bennett.

27. The Applicant claims that, if he were returned to South Sudan, he would face harm due to his Dinka ethnicity, imputed pro-government political opinion as a Dinka, his membership of a particular social group as a returnee from the West, his imputed political opinion arising from being a returnee from the West and or his perceived wealth arising from being a returnee from the West. These factors would operate in the context of him having no familial or social ties in South Sudan. I accept that the Applicant is Dinka. The Applicant put forward a great deal of country information in support of those claims, none of which was challenged by the Respondent.

28. A 2016 report on South Sudan from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“the DFAT report”) indicates that a person’s ethnicity is the most significant determinant of their risk of experiencing official and societal discrimination and violence in South Sudan, and that this intensified following the outbreak of conflict in December 2013 which intertwined both ethnicity and political opinion. Further, Dinka is one of the three prominent ethnic groups who are most at risk because of their active involvement in the conflict between the Government (to which they are aligned) and the opposition. The report goes on to say that conditions for returnees differ depending on their ethnic or sub-ethnic linkages and whether they are perceived to question the authority of the Government. Given the supremacy of the Dinka ethnic group in Juba (the capital), a Dinka would likely be able to return to Juba without facing discrimination or violence.

29. Juba is where the main international airport is located so the Applicant would not have to travel to get there. There is no apparent reason why he would settle somewhere other than Juba.

30. The Applicant’s mother visited Juba in 2006 (on her way to Rumbek) for her mother’s funeral and in 2016 for another funeral. She described South Sudan as a “scary place”, saying that every day she heard “shooting here and there, somebody killed here, somebody killed there”.[26] She does not think the Applicant can be safe there. She referred to random killings in Rumbek and also revenge killings where a valued member of a tribe will be killed in retaliation for the killing of someone in a rival tribe.

    [26] Transcript, page 82 line 20 to line 22.

31. However, she was not harmed or even threatened on either trip. On her first trip, she was helped and accommodated by strangers who recognised from her clothing that she was there for a funeral. On her second visit she and her niece from Australia stayed for two weeks with her niece’s relative in Juba, who has since passed away. They wore Australian clothing and carried mobile phones. She described Juba as a big city and where there are a lot of good people. She said she received support and affection, and without those people she would have been harmed. However, she and her niece moved around Juba freely, including walking to church and taking a bus to the shops, without ever being harmed which suggests that they were not in danger.

32. The DFAT Country Information Report does not identify any risk specifically relating to a person's status as a returnee from the West. DFAT travel advice is that visitors face a risk of harm from crime and kidnapping. It was submitted that the Applicant could be identified as having spent time in the West because of the way he speaks, by him revealing it, or by him receiving remittances, and this would make him a target then for kidnapping or extortion because of a belief (whether correct or not) that he has access to money. This is not what the Applicant’s mother experienced. She sought to draw a distinction between her experience and what the Applicant would experience by pointing out she was helped because her black clothing made it apparent that she was there for a funeral and people will not just give the Applicant protection. 

33. Given the somewhat conflicting evidence, the Tribunal is not in an optimal position to make a finding about whether the Applicant is a refugee or in need of complementary protection. The Applicant is not precluded from applying for a protection visa. If he does, then his claims can be more comprehensively assessed in that process, and I think that is the appropriate course.   

34. The Applicant cannot be removed while a protection visa application is being processed, and the grant of a protection visa would obviously entitle him to return to the wider community. He could be found to be a refugee or in need of complementary protection but disqualified from being granted a protection visa because of character, community safety or security concerns.[27] If a protection finding[28] were made in the course of considering a protection visa application made by the Applicant (and not quashed or overridden), then section 198 of the Act would not require or authorise his removal.[29] He would be detained in immigration detention as required by section 189 of the Act for an indefinite period.

    [27] Subsections 36(1B), (1C) and (2C) of the Act; s 501(1) of the Act.

    [28] As defined by s 197C of the Act.

    [29] Section 197C(3) of the Act.

35. There is a theoretical possibility that the Applicant could be removed to an alternative country, or the Minister could exercise his/her personal discretion under section 195A of the Act to grant another visa or under section 197AB of the Act to make a residence determination to enable the Applicant to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions. However, there is no evidence regarding the likelihood of these powers being exercised, and the Minister’s current position is that the Applicant should not have a visa.

36. There is a real possibility that a non-revocation decision will result in the indefinite detention of the Applicant, which will mean continued physical separation from his family and limited access to the psychological treatment he needs. An alternative to indefinite detention is removal to South Sudan. That would occur if the Applicant were not considered to be at real risk of serious or significant harm specific to him (to put it simplistically). However dire the possible legal consequences of an adverse decision may be for the Applicant, that cannot be determinative: it hardly needs to be pointed out that a risk of serious harm in one’s home country is not a license to perpetrate harm in the Australian community. It is difficult to quantify the weight this Other Consideration carries based on possibilities. However, when balancing all the mandatory considerations, I am cognisant that an adverse decision will likely result in either removal to South Sudan (addressed further in the next Other Consideration) or indefinite detention.           

    EXTENT OF IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED

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

    (a)his age and health;

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

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

38. The Applicant is an able bodied 34 year old man who is in good physical health. He has a predisposition to abuse alcohol and he would benefit from psychological counselling. He speaks three commonly spoken languages. While he is not familiar with South Sudan, he was raised in a Sudanese family and therefore would be familiar with some aspects of the culture.

39. It is not known whether people in Juba would help the Applicant like they helped his mother. There is no guarantee. The Applicant has experience doing jobs involving manual labour, so I infer that he has some transferrable skills. South Sudan has an extremely poor economy and a large portion of the population rely on money sent from overseas. The Applicant’s mother indicated that it would be difficult to save money to send to the Applicant in South Sudan. However, many of the Applicant’s siblings work so I do not accept that his family could not send money to assist him. I do accept that it may not be enough, and he could still struggle to find accommodation and support himself. I further accept that generalised danger and instability will make it hard to establish himself especially without a family to insulate him from it. There is country information suggesting that men are pressured to join government aligned or opposition forces although it does not appear to refer to places like Juba, so I am not satisfied that he is at risk of being coerced into political violence.     

1. According to the DFAT report, South Sudan’s population has extremely poor access to health care. I accept that the Applicant likely will not be able to access psychological services. This will affect him differently to South Sudanese citizens who have family support.

2. It is not certain whether, if the Applicant is removed to South Sudan, he would be able to establish himself and maintain what are considered to be basic living standards there. There is a risk that he will not. This Other Consideration carries significant weight in favour of the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

   IMPACT ON VICTIMS

3. There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the impact that the Applicant’s continued presence in Australia would have on any victims. This Other Consideration is therefore not relevant.

   IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS

4. This consideration should be given weight where a decision to cancel the Applicant's visa would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia. The Applicant makes no such claim. This Other Consideration is therefore not relevant.

   CONCLUSION

5. I am now required to weigh all of the relevant Considerations in accordance with the Direction. This is a finely balanced matter. The Applicant’s case was presented with a great deal of skill and diligence, and I am persuaded to decide in his favour. I have allocated weight to the applicable mandatory considerations and explained my reasons. Importantly, while the Applicant has a very serious assault in his history and there remains a risk that he will re-offend, he will have the benefit of a strong, prosocial family around him in the community, and rehabilitative counselling, which will mitigate that risk. Further, the likely consequences for the Applicant of a non-revocation decision are severe. His links to the Australian community, the best interests of his minor nieces and nephews, the legal consequences of an adverse decision and the impediments he will face in South Sudan combined outweigh the combined weight allocated to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community.[30]

   [30] Noting that Family Violence did not attract more than negligible weight.

6. Application of the Direction therefore favours the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. 

   DECISION

7. The decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 24 January 2020 is set aside and substituted with a decision that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding 111 (one-hundred-and-eleven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy

........................................................................

Associate

Dated:   1 August 2023

Date of hearing:

27 and 28 March 2023

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr M Kenneally

Mayek Legal, Barristers and Solicitors

Solicitor for the Respondent

Ms K Ervin
Clayton Utz

ATTACHMENT A

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
Tr1	Agreed Remittal Bundle (539 pages)	R	Various	8/12/2022
A1	Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (10 pages)	A	17/2/2023	17/2/2023
A2	Applicant’s Evidence (20 pages)	A	Various	17/2/2023
A3	Statement of Applicant (7 pages)	A	16/2/2023	16/2/2023
A4	Bundle of Country Information and Secondary Sources (956 pages)	A	Various	17/2/2023
A5	Applicant’s Reply (4 pages)	A	20/3/2023	20/3/2023
A6	Applicant’s Reply Bundle (137 pages)	A	20/3/2023	20/3/2023
A7	Bundle of Family Support Statements (13 pages)	A	Various	20/3/2023
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (26 pages)	R	17/3/2023	17/3/2023
R2	Bundle of Incident Reports (103 pages)	R	Various	17/3/2023