(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government... Decision makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. The Direction provides that violent crimes, crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
2. Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of certain crimes or conduct) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen. Subparagraph (e) requires the decision maker to have regard to the frequently of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any tread of increasing seriousness.
3. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal has had regard to the Police Facts Sheets, court documents and sentencing remarks, where available (while acknowledging the applicant's evidence that he did not agree to the agreed statements of facts).
4. There are before the Tribunal the sentencing remarks of Judge Abadee DCJ dated 7 June 2024. His honour referred to the offences as supply of prohibited drug (483 g of methylamphetamine) and possession of unauthorised prohibited firearm (gel blaster firearm) and several additional offences, including possession of unauthorised prohibited firearms / weapons (colt handgun, concealed blades, multi-edged knife and knuckle-dusters). It relation to the offending, His Honour stated that the Applicant and his co-offenders were identified as being involved with a group distributing drugs in the local area and, in particular, the Applicant was used as a courier for supply on the Central Coast. It is stated that there were two broad categories of supplies relating to the Applicant, first featuring actual couriering of Ice and one attempt to courier Ice and the second featuring a singular supply of Ice which was delivered by the Applicant. It is stated that the total quantity of drugs supplied by the Applicant during this period was 483 g of Ice.
5. With respect to the firearms and weapons offences, His Honour stated that the police searched the Applicant's storage unit and discovered a gel blaster handgun and a colt handgun with magazine, twin swords, another sword and knuckle dusters.
6. His Honour rejected the Applicant's claim that the Applicant was not aware of the quantity of drugs or given any information. His Honour stated that the Applicant was privy to a certain level of planning with the intention of evading detection. His Honour noted that the Applicant's role was not determinative but was still significant and was below the mid-range but not at the lowest end of the range.
7. With respect to the firearms offences, His Honour was unable to be satisfied that the firearms were a 'tool of the drug trade' but was unable to ascribe any innocent purpose to these and found that offending to be below mid-range. (The Applicant stated that his boss shared a storage shed with him and the weapons belonged to his boss and the guns were plastic pistols which he bought as toys for his child.)
8. His Honour considered the Applicant's evidence concerning his background and a report by a forensic psychologist Mr Brecht. His Honour regarded it as implausible what the Applicant told the psychologist about his lack of awareness that he was couriering drugs and was taken advantage of by others. His Honour noted that if the Applicant's concern at the time of offending was one of financial insecurity, he could have sought help from his father or siblings who, he claims, supported him in custody. His Honour did not accept the Applicant's culpability could be reduced on account of mental abnormality. With respect to remorse, His Honour referred to an assessment by Mr Brecht that the Applicant appeared to lack insight into ownership of his behaviour and while the Applicant claimed to have ceased using drugs and alcohol significant time before the offending, he had committed a drug possession offence in 2019 and had also taken drugs in custody. His Honour was unable to find that the Applicant was remorseful or contrite. With respect to the risk of reoffending, His Honour referred to the assessment by Mr Brecht that there was a moderate risk of reoffending and that the Applicant required intervention to avoid reoffending. His Honour 'could not confidently say' that the Applicant is unlikely to reoffend.
9. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he disagreed with the agreed facts but his lawyer threatened to withdraw the representation if he did not sign and the lawyer promised an earlier trial if he pleaded guilty, which he did. The Applicant acknowledges that Abadee J did not accept that he was ignorant of the drug offending but states that this is because he signed the agreed facts which he should not have done.
10. With respect to the 2019 drugs found in his car, the Applicant states that the drugs did not belong to him and his car had been used by others. The Applicant denied that the plastic pipes were weapons and told the Tribunal he used these for the martial art lessons. With respect to the knife, the Applicant states it was a small knife with a small blade which he should have stored in the toolbox. The Applicant states that, in hindsight, he agrees he had done something wrong. With respect to the 2020 offence, the Applicant states that he was working for someone inspecting pits and did not know how the drug operation was taking place.
11. The Respondent notes that the Applicant's evidence contradicts the agreed facts which suggest that the Applicant acted as a courier to deliver a quantity of drugs and receive a payment. (The Applicant denied acting as a courier in his oral evidence and denied taking his son on a courier run. The applicant denies receiving any significant payments, stating the absence of payments supports his claim that he was not aware of the drug operations.) When questioned by the Respondent about the intercepted phone calls which appear to refer to drug deliveries and large cash payments, the Applicant denied any knowledge of what was going on and denied that he was involved in any discussions concerning drugs. The Applicant conceded that he was driving a vehicle containing drugs but claims he had no knowledge of the drugs and believed he was doing another job. The Applicant claims he was 'naïve' and trusted others.
12. In relation to the 2020 offending the Applicant states that he was given an envelope to give to another person and he did not ask what was inside and he was not paid. With respect to the possession of firearms, the Applicant states that he shared the storage cell with another person. He states that the plastic firearms were toys that he bought for his son and they were obviously made of plastic. He concedes that the guns could shoot projectiles. He states that the weapons did not belong to him, although he saw them in the storage cage, and he pleaded guilty on the advice of his lawyer.
13. The Tribunal has found the Applicant's denials of any knowledge of the offending unpersuasive. That is, the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant was entirely ignorant of the drugs in his possession, or in his car, on multiple occasions as he claims. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's explanations as to the content of the intercepted phone calls, which, when viewed in conjunction with the actual possession of drugs, point, in the Tribunal's view, to the Applicant's knowledge of the drugs operation and his willing participation in the criminal enterprise.
14. The Respondent questioned the veracity of the Applicant's evidence concerning the circumstances in which he signed the agreed statements of facts and notes that the sentencing judge did not accept the Applicant's claim that he was ignorant of the commission of offences and the Respondent claims that the Tribunal should give greater weight to the police facts and the findings of the sentencing judge. The Applicant is effectively asking the Tribunal to disregard the comments of the sentencing judge (who dismissed the Applicant's claimed lack of knowledge) and to give preference to his own denials. The Tribunal is not prepared to do so and accepts the Respondent's submission that the agreed statements of facts and the findings of the sentencing judge constitute more probative and more persuasive evidence than the Applicant's claims. The Tribunal has formed the view, as did the sentencing judge, that the applicant was cognisant of the drugs and that he had participated in the drug distribution activity knowingly.
15. In his SOFIC the Applicant acknowledges the gravity and seriousness of his offending but refers to his other characteristics (including family in Australia, length of his residence, the support he provides to his children, etc) which are addressed below. The Applicant states that he turned to drugs as a coping mechanism when his marriage broke down in 2014 following the death of his mother and became 'trapped in a cycle of addiction and mental health struggles'. The Applicant states, with respect to recent offending, that he was homeless and was responsible for providing financial support to his children. The Applicant notes that the court found he held a low-level position as a delivery person and found the offending to be at the lower range of seriousness. The Applicant submits that although his offending was of serious nature, it does not fall within the categories of being 'serious' or 'very serious' as defined in the Direction. The Tribunal is mindful that the Direction does not prescribe, nor limit, what may be considered to be serious offending and such an assessment can have regard to the particular circumstances of the offending.
16. In oral evidence the Applicant also stated that once he became homeless, he found a place to live with someone who was involved in drugs and he gradually became involved without realising what he was doing until it was too late. The Applicant denied some of the offending and states that he was not treated well by the legal system. The Applicant states that he would be able to 'get back on his feet' if allowed to stay in Australia but would struggle if he was required to leave Australia (this is discussed more fully below).
17. In his written statement the Applicant submits that, having regard to the frequency of offending, there is no trend of increased seriousness and no pattern of escalation but there are isolated offences linked to specific personal circumstances. The Tribunal does not consider that submission to be correct or accurate. The earliest offending involved driving under influence. The Applicant was then convicted for possession of drugs, then possession of prohibited weapons and supply of drugs. In the Tribunal's view, this does suggest that the offending was of increasing seriousness. Notably, the earlier offending was dealt with by way of fines while the Applicant received a substantial custodial sentence for the most recent offending. That also supports a finding that the offending was of more increasing seriousness.
18. The Respondent, in the SOFIC, refers to the significant harm to the community from methamphetamines, including physical, psychological and social harm to users and others, as well as economic harm and the seriousness of firearms offences.
19. The Tribunal considers drug related offending to be serious, noting the potential harm that drugs could pose to the community and individuals. The Applicant was also found in possession of prohibited weapon and the sentencing judge could not ascribe any innocent purpose to that. The Tribunal acknowledges the potential physical and psychological harm to others that weapons may pose, when used. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant's offending was very serious.

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

1. The Tribunal has considered the risk to the community, should the Applicant reoffend. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some of the conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; > > b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > 1. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > 1. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence

3. Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in the offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community's tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
4. The Applicant's offending related to the supply of prohibited drugs and in the Tribunal's view, if that offending was to be repeated, there could be serious harm to the community as a result of drugs being available. The Applicant also holds convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that conduct could pose serious harm to other road users. The Tribunal is of the view that if the Applicant was to engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct of the type similar to his past offending, there could be significant harm to the community.
5. The Tribunal has considered likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
6. As noted above, Judge Abadee could not confidently say that the Applicant was unlikely to reoffend and relied on an assessment by a forensic psychologist Mr Brecht who determined there was moderate risk of reoffending.
7. The Tribunal has been provided with the Department of Corrective Services case notes report. There is a record of an interview completed on 7 May 2025 by Tony Royes. It indicates that the Applicant continued to claim he was unaware of what he was doing and that he was unaware of the co-offenders' conversations on which the Judge relied. The Applicant state that the Ice pipe found in his vehicle was not his as many others used his vehicle. The Applicant is reported to have agreed that the gel blasters found in his son's toybox were his while others were not his. The Applicant is reported to have stated that he pleaded guilty on advice of his lawyer.
8. The Tribunal has been provided with the pre-sentence report prepared by Cathy Padgen in May 2014 in relation to the drink-driving offence. The report indicates that the Applicant had not identified that he had a problem with alcohol but now describes himself as a binge drinker. It is stated that he was open and insightful regarding his offending and alcohol consumption.
9. The Tribunal has been provided with the pre-release report prepared by Nikki Grant in June 2025. The report refers to the Applicant's personal and family circumstances and his history of anti-social behaviour. It is stated that the Applicant denied he was aware that he was taking part in a drug supply operation, stated that he was not offered to use the drugs and stated that he Ice pipe found in the vehicle was not his. The Applicant claimed that the gel blasters were his but believed they were legal. Ms Grant states that the Applicant continued to deny full responsibility for his offending behaviours and apportions blame to his co-offenders and solicitor but he is motivated to live a pro social lifestyle and provide a supportive environment for his family. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of Progress Notes prepared by Douglas Kirk, psychologist, which refer to several sessions between July 2024 and May 2025.
10. Ms Grant refers to Mr Brecht's assessment regarding the link between the Applicant's mental health and offending and states that the Applicant has seen a psychologist over 15 times in July 2024 and, if granted parole, he would be directed to attend a GP for a mental plan. It is stated that the Applicant was deemed ineligible to participate in targeted intervention but had engaged in counselling and NA meetings. It is stated that following the sentencing, the Applicant was given the minimum security classification. It is stated that the Applicant has been assessed at medium - low risk of reoffending.
11. The Respondent submits that the assessment of moderate risk of reoffending is consistent with the Applicant's extensive and reasonably recent offending and risk factors, including the Applicant's mental health, drug use and lack of remorse / insight. The Respondent notes that according to Mr Brecht, the Applicant has developed poor coping strategies and the court did not accept the link between the Applicant's mental health and his offending. The Respondent notes that the Applicant had undertaken some psychological counselling but has no plans for treatment on release and past counselling had been ineffective. With respect to drug use, the Respondent notes that the Applicant denies that alcohol and drug use contributed to his offending and despite limited drug rehabilitation, he continued to use buprenorphine in custody. With respect to lack of remorse, the Respondent notes that the judge dismissed the Applicant's denial of any of knowledge in drug offending and could not find that the Applicant was remorseful. The Respondent notes that the Applicant continues to deny involvement in offending and while in custody, he attempted to smuggle mobile phones (the applicant told the Tribunal he was threatened). The Respondent notes that the Applicant has no planned accommodation if released into community and he is at risk of homelessness and his relationship with the children may be a protective factor but may also pose a risk to his mental health.
12. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has not used drugs for many years and does not believe he has issues with drugs. The Applicant denied any link between his offending and drug use. The Applicant told the Tribunal that being in custody has taught him about his conduct however, he concedes that after the first period of imprisonment he continued to offend and claims he was surrounded by the wrong people.
13. In his revocation request, the Applicant stated that his offending was due to his economic distress of being homeless and unemployed and in oral evidence the Applicant denied any link between his own drug use and his offending. The Applicant states that once released, he has secured employment and accommodation and his employer is willing to 'sponsor' him until he is back to his feet. In his SOFIC the Applicant also states that the earlier offending occurred when he was devastated by the loss of his mother and the breakup of his marriage while the more recent offending occurred when he was homeless but had the financial responsibilities for his children. The Tribunal considers these explanations problematic. Firstly, the Tribunal notes that Judge Abadee was unpersuaded by the claim that offending occurred due to the Applicant's economic distress and homelessness, noting that the Applicant did not seek support from his family in the UK. Secondly, there is no probative evidence (such as, for example, an assessment by a health professional or another specialist) that has established a link between the Applicant's offending and the events in his life. Indeed, the 2014 offending which followed the death of the Applicant's mother and the breakup of his marriage seems to be an isolated offence with further offending not occurring for some seven years.
14. Further, if the Applicant seeks to establish the link between his personal circumstances and offending, the Tribunal considers that evidence problematic as a justification of the Applicant's conduct or as evidence that the risk of reoffending has been reduced. The Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant may experience any number of distressing circumstances in the future. If the Applicant's response to such circumstances involves drugs and criminal conduct, and if the Applicant believes that criminal behaviour is, and can be, justified by adverse circumstances, then there is a real likelihood that the Applicant will again turn to criminal offending if he experiences hardship in the future.
15. The Applicant states that he has participated in the cognitive behaviour therapy, prison psychology (6 sessions) and NA. The Case Notes report indicates that in April 2025 a case plan interview was conducted with the Applicant by Mr Andrews, who also states that while in custody, the Applicant had actively participated in rehabilitation and structured programs and had engaged in Kairos, NA, regular psychological appointments and spiritual support. In oral evidence the Applicant also referred to the courses he completed and stated that he has been able to analyse his own choices and to 'better himself'. The Applicant stated that he has always been a hard working man and has never been a criminal and it had 'shocked him' to find himself in that position.
16. The Tribunal acknowledges the report by Tony Royes of 7 May 2025 and the report of Ms Grant, both of whom indicate that the Applicant continues to lack insight into his offending and to take appropriate responsibility for his conduct.
17. In his SOFIC the Applicant states that the assessment of risk must be considered in light of his unique personal circumstances. The Applicant notes that this is the first time he has faced the prospect of visa cancellation and of being removed from his children to whom he has a strong attachment. The Applicant states that the prospect of being separated from his children will mitigate the risk of reoffending lowering to a below 'moderate' level.
18. The Tribunal notes, however, that other than the Applicant's own assertion that the risk would be lower than 'moderate', there is no probative evidence to support that assessment. Mr Brecht assessed the risk of reoffending as being moderate while Ms Grant assessed the risk as being medium-low. The Applicant may feel that the level of risk is lower but the Tribunal does not consider the Applicant to necessarily be the best judge on that issue.
19. In his statement dated 10 August 2025 the Applicant claims that he is not the same person he was when incarcerated. The Applicant refers to his background and past study and the circumstances in 2015 which resulted in him becoming homeless. The Applicant states that he believed himself innocent and blamed others but since he attended various courses and church regularly, he started to see that his behaviour was due to his bad choices. The Applicant states that he is ready to take control of his life and his children's futures. The Applicant states that in the UK he will have no family or friends to support him other than 'verbally' and his work qualification would not be recognised in the UK making it difficult for him to find work. The Applicant states that in Australia he will have employment upon release and he is not a threat. The Applicant states that he will not 'slip back' into his past lifestyle.
20. The Applicant provided to the Tribunal a statement from a friend, Mr Stuart Young, who refers to the Applicant's rehabilitation and to the Applicant being remorseful for his actions (the Tribunal is mindful that this does not appear to be consistent with the reports summarised above which suggest that the Applicant largely denied his knowledge of the criminal activities and had done so quite recently). Mr Young states that there is there is 'zero' chance of the Applicant reoffending. Mr Young refers to the circumstances of the Applicant's children and, in particular, his son B. Mr Young has also extended a job offer to the Applicant, driving a truck. He states that the Applicant's family in the UK are 'reluctant to assist' if he was to return to England. In oral evidence Mr Young referred to the Applicant making 'stupid decisions' and 'hanging around the wrong people' and being too naïve and trusting. Mr Young spoke about the effects of the Applicant's offending on the Applicant's son. He stated that he has offered a job to the Applicant and would not have done unless he was certain it would not affect his business. Mr Young expressed the view that the Applicant will not reoffend, particularly if he lives in a different area, and given the effect on his son. Mr Young has expressed the view that the Applicant's drug use contributed to his poor decision-making leading to the offending. He has offered to support the Applicant (and his son in case of the Applicant's removal from Australia) and states that he has contacted the Applicant's family in UK but they are not able to assist.
21. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Young may genuinely believe that there is no chance of the Applicant reoffending. The Tribunal is mindful that this is not necessarily consistent with the professional assessments referred to above. With respect, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of professionals who, in the Tribunal's view, have better skills to undertake such assessments and to determine the risk of reoffending.
22. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he now understands his visa may be cancelled if he reoffends and he now appreciates the seriousness of this whereas before he was not familiar with the immigration rules. The Tribunal accepts that the risk of visa cancellation and of removal from Australia would act as a significant incentive for the Applicant not to reoffend. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he may be subject to strict parole conditions and will comply with these and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will be subject to parole conditions until 2027. That may not necessarily reduce, and in the Tribunal's view, would not totally remove, the risk of reoffending, noting in particular the Applicant's non-compliance with past bail conditions in 2020.
23. The Tribunal is concerned that the Applicant continues to deny any knowledge of drugs despite the convictions (claiming the was forced to sign the agreed statements of facts despite his disagreement to those). The Applicant denies ownership of drugs found in his car or found in his possession on another occasion. He states that he was never paid (or paid small amounts) which is not consistent with him being involved in drug couriering and he willingly allowed police to search his car when drugs were found. The Applicant states that he would not have taken his son with him if he knew there were drugs in his car. The Applicant denies ownership of the prohibited weapons.
24. To date, despite having 'a lot of time to think' about his offending during imprisonment, the Applicant continues to deny his involvement or knowledge of the offending and seems to blame others for his convictions (stating these were due to his associations with the wrong people and his naivety and wrong advice from the lawyer). The Tribunal considers it simply implausible (as did the sentencing judge) that the multiple interactions the Applicant had with drugs and illegal weapons were all coincidental. Rather, the Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant continues to lack insight into his offending and fails to take responsibility for his conduct and he continues to blame his offending conduct on others.
25. The Applicant claims that he has nothing to gain by being untruthful because if he was to commit another offence, he would definitely be deported. The Tribunal does not accept that argument, noting that if the Applicant's claims are accepted, he may have a significant benefit of having his visa reinstated. It cannot be said 'there is nothing to gain' by the Applicant if he were to make untruthful statements or promises for the future.
26. The Applicant refers to the length of time he has spent in jail, states that he had 'a lot of time to think' and would no longer associate with the wrong people. Even if the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's undertaking not to reoffend as genuine, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant necessarily has the means and the ability to remove himself from such conduct. The Tribunal places some weight on the fact that the Applicant's resolve to avoid further criminal conduct - arising from his reflection while in jail - has not been tested in the community. As noted above, the Applicant did previously spend time in jail and did reoffend. The Applicant claims that now that he has spent more time in jail, he appreciates his wrong-doings (which is not apparent from his ongoing denials of misconduct) but since the lengthy period of incarceration the Applicant has not spent time in the community and has not demonstrated his ability to avoid negative influences.
27. The Tribunal has formed the view that there remains a real risk of the Applicant engaging in criminal conduct in the future and that risk is above the minimal risk. This is despite the existence of protective factors (the risk of removal from Australia, desire to remain in Australia and support his children, employment opportunities and various supports) which may to some extent reduce the risk. This is consistent with the professional opinions expressed above which place the risk at moderate or medium-low.
28. The Tribunal has formed the view that the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against the revocation.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

(1) The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen

1. There is no evidence to indicate that the Applicant had committed family violence. This consideration is neutral.

The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

(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 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

1. How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that
   1. Less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
   2. More weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
2. 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.

1. The Applicant has been living in Australia for a period of about 21 years. He did not arrive in Australia as a young child and did not begin offending soon after arriving in Australia.
2. The Applicant refers to his professional qualifications obtained in Australia and past employment as a truck driver and a handyman. In his revocation request the Applicant refers to his involvement in voluntary activities (such as Clean Up Australia) and in his children's school activities. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant has contributed to the community through his employment and other activities.
3. In his written submission to the Tribunal the Applicant states that he has built his life in Australia and established strong ties to this country. He states that his adult life, employment and family relationships are rooted in Australia and he had the support of his family and contributed to society. The Applicant refers to his strong work ethic and past employment and voluntary activities. The Tribunal has been provided with letters of support, including a statement from the Applicant's brother Mandi Carruthers Boyd, a friend Stuart Young and his son B. These generally refer to the Applicant's rehabilitation and remorse and the need for the Applicant to remain in Australia. Mr Young's oral evidence is referred to elsewhere.
4. Other than his children, the Applicant does not appear to have family members in Australia. He spoke about the presence of a few friends in Australia but could not name any as close as Mr Young and told the Tribunal he did not wish to associate with them.
5. The Applicant's two children (one of whom is a minor) reside in Australia and are Australian citizens. The Applicant claims that he supports his daughter, who needs him given her age, and who would be 'lost' without him. The Applicant's daughter Lacey provided a statement referring to her brother's mental health issues and reliance on his father for guidance, stability and emotional support. Lacey refers to the support she and her brother receive from the Applicant and the emotional and other impact of his removal would have on her and her brother.
6. The Applicant claims in his revocation request that his children will be socially and financially impacted and will experience shame and humiliated by the decision on his visa. There is no evidence before the Tribunal concerning the provision of financial support by the Applicant to his children, particularly given his lengthy period of incarceration, although the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may have provided financial support to his children in the past and that he intends to do so in the future.
7. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he lived with his son prior to his incarceration and his son now lives with a friend. The Applicant refers to his son's attempted suicide. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's relationship with his children, and his ability to support his children physically and practically, and possibly in other ways, may be adversely affected if the Applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant's other relationships in Australia may be adversely affected if the Applicant was to be removed from Australia.
8. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has family ties (particularly his children), some, albeit limited, social ties (he refers to having one close friend in Australia) and employment ties (the Applicant refers to his past employment and the option of future employment) in this country. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's children and his friend may be adversely impacted by the applicant's removal from Australia. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation.

The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. 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.
2. The Applicant has one minor son, aged 16. In his revocation request the Applicant states that his son is emotionally and financially dependent on him, treats him as a role model and refers to his son's mental health issues and suicide attempt in 2024. There are statements from third parties who have expressed concern about the effect on this child of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant also presented with the revocation request copies of his children's cards, family photos and other evidence of his relationship with his children. When applying for review, the Applicant also stated that he needs to remain in Australia to support his children, particularly his younger son, and the Applicant states that his children need him.
3. In his SOFIC the Applicant states that his son is emotionally dependent on him and would be profoundly affected by the cancellation. The Applicant states that he played an essential role in guiding his son and such guidance would be lost if he was removed from Australia. The Applicant refers to emotional and financial assistance provided to his son, and his active involvement with his son's life, stating that his role as a father has been pivotal. The Applicant states that his incarceration has been devastating for his son and in 2024 he suffered a mental health crisis resulting in a suicide attempt and admission to a mental health ward. The Applicant states that his removal from Australia could trigger a total mental breakdown in his son who is emotionally fragile.
4. The Applicant told the Tribunal that B's mother has 'pushed him out' and is not helpful and his son has been reliant on him prior to his incarceration. The Applicant spoke about regular contact with his two children and states that his children could not travel with him to the UK. The Applicant told the Tribunal that although he does not have legal custody of his son, his son wants to live with him if he is able to remain in Australia.
5. The Tribunal has been provided with a letter prepared by the Applicant's son B in August 2025. B refers to the regular contact with his father and his own struggles with mental health and hardship he had experienced since his father's incarceration. Mr Young also spoke about the effects of the Applicant's imprisonment and potential removal from Australia on the Applicant's son. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
6. The Respondent claims in the SOFIC that there has been limited meaningful contact between the Applicant and his children since at least 2022 and there is limited evidence about the relationship between the Applicant and his children. The Respondent notes that there is no evidence as to whether the Applicant has the means to support his son in the future. The Respondent notes that the Applicant has engaged in conduct which shows him to be an 'unsuitable parent' having taken his then 11 year old child on one of his drug supply runs and providing his son with a 'toy' which was classified as a pistol and arranging for the child to live in accommodation that was not appropriate to him. The Respondent also notes that the Applicant's ex-wife fulfils the parental role in relation to the children. The Respondent also submits that while it may be accepted that B has had mental health issues, the link has not been established between the child's mental health issues and the absence of the father and, conversely, it is not established that if the Applicant remains in Australia with his son, that would assist the child in overcoming these issues. The Respondent notes that the child is 16 and there is only a relatively short period when heh will remain a minor.
7. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the Applicant's evidence that he speaks to his children twice a week and that he has a good relationship with his son and wants to provide care and support to this child. The Tribunal accepts that there is a meaningful relationship between the Applicant and his son. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that (at least prior to the Applicant's incarceration) the Applicant's son relied on the Applicant in a number of ways, including emotionally, financially and practically. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant genuinely intends to live with his son, if he is released into the community in Australia, and support his son in the future. The Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of the Applicant's son if the Applicant's visa is reinstated and if the Applicant is able to remain in Australia. The Tribunal also accepts the evidence about the child's emotional state and mental health and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the child's mental may be adversely affected if the Applicant's visa is cancelled.
8. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

1. Sub-clause 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction sets out the government's view in relation to community expectations:

'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, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.'

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[1] 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. Instead, 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.[2]
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) 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.
3. In Ismail[3] the High Court said (regarding the same primary consideration as it appeared at paragraph 8.4 in the former Direction 90):

... para 8.4 does not stipulate that, in assessing what weight is to be given to the expectations of the Australian community, the decision maker must attribute to that hypothesised community knowledge of the personal circumstances of the Applicant for the visa as known to the delegate. To the contrary, para 8.4(4) stipulates that the decision maker is to proceed on the basis of the Australian Government's views as set out in para 8.4 "without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the Applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1)- (3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community...

1. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the revocation. Given the serious nature of the drug offending and the potential harm such type of offending could cause to members of the community, the Tribunal is of the view that this consideration weighs heavily against the revocation and that it should be given significant weight against revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

(1) Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen...

1. The Applicant is not subject of a protection finding. The Applicant does not claim, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are engaged in this case.
2. The Applicant claims that upon the completion of his sentence, he will be placed in immigration detention and may spend considerable time in detention while he exercises his options, which is not fair. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant's visa remains cancelled, the Applicant will have various options which, if exercised, may prolong his stay in detention.
3. If the Applicant's visa remains cancelled, the Applicant would be removed from Australia and may spend time in detention until the removal can be effected. The cancellation of the visa means that the Applicant may not be granted another Australian visa in the future. The Tribunal is of the view that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation but gives it very limited weight as the legal consequences of the cancellation are the intended consequences.

1. 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.

2. The Applicant is 55 years of age. He had lived in the UK until his mid-30's and the Tribunal does not consider he would experience any substantial language or cultural barriers.
3. The Applicant refers to having depression, anxiety and PTSD and to his ongoing treatment and sessions with a psychologist. The Applicant also informed the delegate that he has recently been diagnosed with diabetes and takes medication for blood pressure and high cholesterol. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a number of health issues.
4. In his revocation request the Applicant claims that he might become homeless and destitute if he was to return to the UK, he will not have tools and has no contacts or other social support to help him. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his father has Parkinson's disease and cannot support him, he has not spoken to his brother for a long time and his sister has her own family and cannot support him. In his written statement the Applicant states that his removal from Australia would have a huge impact on him and he may not integrate back into the British community after 20 years of absence. In his SOFIC the Applicant also states that he is likely to face significant, financial and emotional impediment, including difficulties in security accommodation, income and establishing a support network. The Applicant states that he would be at risk of becoming homeless and destitute due to his age, lack of belonging and difficulty in reintegrating into British society and he told the Tribunal his 'white card' would not be recognised (although the Applicant states that he could re-sit the test).
5. The Tribunal is mindful that such claims are unsupported by probative evidence. For example, there is no evidence to indicate that the Applicant sought employment and was unable to secure employment. Even though the Applicant told the Tribunal he had lost his tools, he stated that he prefers driving to trade jobs. There is no evidence that the Applicant made any inquiries about securing accommodation in the UK. There is no evidence that he sought employment opportunities, whether in trade or driving or in any other field. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he simply had no information about where he could live or what supports maybe available to him if he was removed to the UK.
6. The Applicant stated in the revocation request that his father, step-mother and two siblings reside in the UK but he told the Tribunal he has no contact with his brother while his father and sister cannot support him. The Applicant provided a number of letters of support from relatives and friends and the Tribunal has given these some weight. The Applicant told the Tribunal that despite a number of individuals providing letters of support for him, they are not able to support him, stating it is unrealistic to expect such support. The Applicant claims that his family are unable to accommodate or care for him on a long term basis. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that his may be the case, at least on a longer term basis, although as noted above, there is little evidence about the availability of employment for the applicant in the UK. As for emotional support, the Tribunal does not consider that such support can only be provided where people live in close geographical proximity or in the same country. That is, there is no reason why the Applicant's supports in Australia (such as his friend and children), or anywhere else, cannot continue to provide him with emotional support if the applicant lives elsewhere.
7. The Applicant states that he has been in Australia for 20 years and all his ties are entirely in Australia and removal would strip him of his established life. The Tribunal accepts that this is a consequence of the decision to cancel the visa held by the Applicant.
8. There is nothing to suggest that social, medical and / or economic support that is generally available to the UK citizens would not be available to the Applicant. There is no probative evidence to indicate that the Applicant will be precluded from seeking employment or that he would be denied employment, even if he no longer has social and other support in the UK. The Respondent states that while there may be a period of readjustment if the Applicant was to return to UK, the difficulties to which the Applicant refers are not insurmountable.
9. The Applicant refers to his mental health, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and other health conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol, stating that these require consistent and reliable medical treatment. The Applicant states that while health services are available in the UK, the standard of care, accessibility and suitability of support that he receives tin Australia may not be replicated overseas increasing the risk of deteriorating health outcomes. The submission is entirely unsupported by any probative evidence and, in particular, there is no evidence to indicate that whatever care the Applicant requires for his physical and mental health would not be available to the Applicant in the UK or would not be at the appropriate level.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may have no or, at best, very limited supports in the UK. That is, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's immediate family may not be in the position to offer meaningful support, particularly in the long term, and he claims he cannot rely on his friends, with whom he has not had any contact for a number of years to support him. While the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's suggestion that the difficulties are not insurmountable, the Tribunal accepts that it may take time for the Applicant to find employment, accommodation and otherwise settle in a country where he has not lived for 20 years. The Tribunal accepts that there would be a significant impediment to the Applicant if he is removed from Australia. This consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3.1 of Direction 110 directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

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

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or of an important service in Australia. This consideration is neutral.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and that he does not pass the character test. The Tribunal has considered if there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
2. The Tribunal has determined that the Applicant continues to present a risk to the community. The Applicant's continuous denial of any knowledge of the criminal engagement, his blaming of others indicate to the Tribunal that despite his claimed rehabilitation, the Applicant lacks insight into his offending and that his remorse may not be genuine. The Tribunal has formed the view that the offending has been serious, that there remains a real (and above minimal) risk of reoffending and that there could be significant harm to the community if the Applicant were to commit other offences of similar nature. The Tribunal finds that the protection of the community and expectations of the community weigh very strongly against the revocation.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has strong ties in Australia, most notably, the presence of his two children. He also has some social and community ties, having previously worked and otherwise contributed to the community. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's removal from Australia may have an adverse impact on the Applicant's family and friends. This consideration weighs in favour of the revocation.
4. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the best interests of the Applicant's minor son. There is evidence before the Tribunal about the impact of separation on the child and there is evidence concerning the child's mental health. While the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the child's mental health may have been impacted by any number of factors unrelated to the Applicant, the Tribunal generally accepts that it is in the best interests of the child to have the stable family support and guidance that the Applicant is willing to provide. The Tribunal finds that the best interests of the child are such that the cancellation should be revoked and this consideration is given significant weight in favour of the revocation.
5. The Applicant has not committed family violence. There is no evidence of any impact on a business. These considerations are neutral.
6. The legal consequence of the decision not to revoke would be such that the Applicant will remain in detention until his removal from Australia and he will not have the opportunity to be granted other Australian visas in the future. These are the intended consequences of the decision not to revoke. The Tribunal gives this consideration very limited weight in favour of the revocation.
7. The Tribunal accepts that there may be a significant impediment to the Applicant if he is removed from Australia. This is because the Applicant has been living away from UK for about 20 years and while there may not be any language or cultural barriers, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will need time to secure accommodation, employment and arrange other aspects of daily life and that he might have little or no family and social support in achieving these goals. These considerations also weigh in favour of the revocation and the Tribunal gives these considerable weight.
8. As noted above, paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the primary consideration of [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.
9. Considering all the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided to give greatest weight to the considerations of the protection of the community and the expectations to the community. In the circumstances of this case, The Tribunal has decided that these considerations should be given greater weight than others and that these outweigh other considerations that favour the revocation.
10. The Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BS Spouse visa.

Solicitor for the Applicant: F. Nikjoo, Nikjoo Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: J. Hutton, Australian Government Solicitor

[1] [2019] FCAFC 185 ('FYBR').

[2] 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.

[3] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 at [51]- [52].