1. The Applicant was born in the United Kingdom on 10 June 1958. She is now 67 years old.[7]
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in July 1968. She was 10 years old. She has been in Australia for 57 years.[8]
3. On 1 September 1986, the Applicant was convicted in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court of offences relating to the falsification of accounts. She was discharged without penalty and fined $300.[9]
4. When asked about this, she dissembled. She initially said that she did not recall anything about the offences. She then said that she remembered that she had to go to court, but not actually going to court. She said that she did not know, until her trial in the District Court on 25 November 2021, that she had been convicted. I do not regard her evidence on this topic as reliable. Her presentation is entirely consistent with the "avoidant coping style" described by Dr Chantler.
5. Between 1987 and 1994 the Applicant worked for Bilo Pty Ltd in marketing.[10]
6. In about 1989, the Applicant commenced a relationship with her husband, [MB].[11] She did not tell him about her earlier convictions. He only found out on 25 November 2021 at her trial.
7. In September 1994, the Applicant was granted a Class BF Transitional (permanent) visa.[12]
8. The Applicant has been entitled to vote pursuant to provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applicable to certain British subjects.[13]
9. From 1994 to 1999, the Applicant worked for Seeley International Ltd., as an accounts receivable supervisor.[14]
10. On 29 January 1995 the Applicant married Mr Burgess.[15]
11. Mr Burgess has a number of serious health conditions, including "depression and suicidal ideation as a result of his recent car accident where he was the driver and a woman died".[16]
12. Mr Burgess is taking many medications presently for mental and physical conditions. I accept that he is emotionally dependant on the Applicant for support. A loss of this support could have very serious adverse consequences for his mental health.
13. From 2000 to 2017, the Applicant worked for her latest employer as a credit manager.[17]
14. On 29 May 2002, the Applicant's niece by marriage, (DB) was born. DB lives in Sydney and is now 23 years old.[18]
15. On 10 June 2007, the Applicant's nephew by marriage, (JHB) was born. JHB lives in Sydney and is now 18 years old.[19]
16. On 31 May 2008, the Applicant travelled to the UK for a visit.[20]
17. On 21 June 2008, the Applicant returned to Australia.[21]
18. Between August 2009 and September 2017, the Applicant committed multiple dishonest acts in relation to records kept by her then employer.[22]
19. On 15 May 2010, the Applicant left Australia.[23]
20. On 9 June 2010, the Applicant returned to Australia.[24]
21. On 11 March 2011, the Applicant left Australia.[25]
22. On 20 March 2011, the Applicant returned to Australia.[26]
23. On 7 March 2012, the Applicant left Australia.[27]
24. On 13 March 2012, the Applicant returned to Australia.[28]
25. On 20 May 2013, the Applicant was granted the Visa.[29]
26. On 10 March 2014, the Applicant left Australia.[30]
27. On 22 March 2014, the Applicant returned to Australia.[31]
28. On 2 May 2015, the Applicant left Australia.[32]
29. On 29 May 2015, the Applicant returned to Australia.[33]
30. The Applicant told the Tribunal that all of these involved visits to the UK and in some cases, to Europe as well.
31. The Applicant was asked questions about her connection to family in the UK. She said that she had not been in contact with them since 2017, notwithstanding that she had stayed with her sister and visited her uncle on her last visit there. I accept that the Applicant has limited connections to the UK, but not as limited as she would have the Tribunal believe.
32. On her incoming passenger card, in 2015 she said that she had no criminal convictions.[34] This was untrue. She accepts that this answer was untrue.[35] I have already referred to her unconvincing evidence regarding the history of her 1986 criminal charges.
33. On 3 May 2017, the Applicant left Australia.[36]
34. On 28 May 2017, the Applicant returned to Australia. On her Incoming passenger card, she said that she had no criminal convictions.[37] This was untrue. She accepts that this answer was untrue.[38] Again, I have already referred to her unconvincing evidence regarding the history of her 1986 criminal charges.
35. On 4 November 2021, the Applicant was remanded custody.[39]
36. On 25 November 2021, the Applicant was convicted of aggravated deception and dishonesty offences and sentenced to a term of 7 years imprisonment.[40]
37. In his sentencing remarks Kimber J said;

"Glenda Burgess, you were found guilty by a jury of nine counts of aggravated deception, counts 1 to 9, and nine counts of aggravated dishonestly dealing with documents, counts 10 to 18. The maximum penalty for each of your offences is imprisonment for 15 years. The 18 offences were over a period from August 2009 to September 2017.

The aggravated deception counts relate to you making false entries into what I will describe as the ledger of your employer. The entries the subject of your counts favoured a specific customer, [redacted]. Within the period I have set out, that company received about $32 million worth of product, but paid only about $20 million.

The aggravated dishonestly dealing with documents counts relate to you knowingly making false entries into what was known as a 'debtor's report'. You knew the debtor's report would go to senior management within the executive of [redacted], your overall employer.

The deliberate creation of a false, misleading document was to hide the true amount of money owed by [redacted]. The first report the subject of a count, was in August 2009. There is no evidence of any inaccurate entry in favour of [redacted] in the ledger before that report. The first such entry in the ledger was in August 2010, so, after count 10, but before count 11. The first false entry the subject of a count within counts 1 to 9, was not until after counts 10 to 13 inclusive had been committed.

While I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt you committed uncharged deceptions before the first count by dishonestly increasing the credit limit of [redacted], you are only to be sentenced for aggravated deception counts the subject of the jury's verdicts. The same observation must be made about the dishonest dealing with documents counts. The nine counts are just a selection of the occasions on which you knowingly provided a misleading report over many years. Again, you are only to be sentenced for the conduct the subject of offences charged.

At the time of your offending you were a trusted employee within [redacted], one of a number of operating companies of [redacted]. You were the head of the Accounts Receivable team within the Cement and Lime Division, the largest division within [redacted]. The Concrete and Lime Division had approximately 800 customers, one of which was [redacted]. You personally handled the [redacted] account within Accounts Receivable. You were responsible for receiving invoices and allocating payments made into the relevant ledger. Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 involve you deliberately transferring a debt away from [redacted] to another customer. In doing so, you caused a benefit to [redacted].

Counts 2, 6 and 9 are occasions on which you allocated a payment received from a customer other than [redacted] to the account of [redacted]. In doing so, you reduced the debt of [redacted] as it appeared in the ledger and failed to reduce the debt of the customer who had made the payment. You knew that you were acting dishonestly on each of those nine occasions.

As I have said, you had some personal responsibility for sending invoices to [redacted]. The production of an invoice was an automated process, which also allowed them to be printed before being sent in hard copy. Notwithstanding this, you would check invoices once they had been printed, or you would cause invoices not to be printed.

By no later than July 2013, you had stopped sending invoices to [redacted] altogether. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at around this time you knew [redacted] was creating its own invoices and paying only approximately 70% of what it really owed. You would make entries which were designed to hide the debt. As I have mentioned, to hide the true state of the debt of [redacted] and to enable you to continue what you were doing, you also increased [redacted]'s credit limit without authorisation.

While you are only to be sentenced for the conduct the subject of the 18 counts, that conduct just further confirms the considered and calculated nature of your conduct. The conduct the subject of the 18 counts was protracted. The deception counts occurred between about January 2013 and January 2017. The counts involving the false reports were between August 2009 and September 2017.

The 18 counts required you to engage in a repeated series of dishonest acts. I have no doubt that your conduct would have continued, had your employer not discovered anomalies in the ledger in about September 2017 and then conducted a thorough investigation. Neither that investigation nor a subsequent investigation by the police has uncovered a motive for your offending beyond that you were motivated to benefit [redacted].

Beyond that motive, I have been unable to make any further finding as to your motive, or the benefit to you. That said, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt your conduct benefited you in some way which I can neither identify nor quantify.

My inability to make any more detailed finding as to your motives does not change, that your employer was being deprived of significant sums and that you were taking steps designed to limit the opportunity for your employer to discover that and to recover those sums.

I do not know whether you appreciated the full extent of the money which was not being paid by [redacted], but I have no doubt that you knew that the sum was many millions of dollars. That the benefit to you is unclear does not diminishes the calculated and protracted nature of your dishonesty while in a position of trust.

Your conduct has caused substantial damage to the reputation of [redacted]. It has caused some customers of [redacted] to doubt the veracity of their accounts. [redacted] has lost several long-term customers it believes, at least in part, because of your conduct.

Your conduct has also caused damage to those who work closely with you and to other members of [redacted].

The impact of your offending goes beyond just the matters I have just mentioned. The investigation of your conduct required the allocation of substantial time and money by your employer. [redacted] believes that had you accepted responsibility for your conduct, that would have provided some closure. Of course, that has not happened.

You are not to be punished for pleading not guilty and for maintaining your innocence, but that does impact upon your prospects of rehabilitation and the extent to which I can extend leniency.

While it might be inherently unlikely that you would ever again have a role like you had at the time of your offences, I cannot say that you will never work again, nor that you will never have some other opportunity to deceive others who deal with money. Such deceptions do not only occur in the course of remunerated employment.

You are 63 years of age. You were born overseas. In 1986 you were convicted of four counts of falsification of accounts. You stole from a past employer. You are not to be sentenced again for that conduct, but it also limits the leniency which I can extend.

You came to Australia when you were 10 years of age. You have been married to your husband for more than 25 years. He has been diagnosed with a condition which impacts adversely upon his physical functioning. You are devoted to one another. You have never had children, but have sadly had a number of miscarriages which have caused you considerable distress. After your convictions in 1986, you lost the job you were in, but you appear to have returned to work involving billing and financial control within a couple of years. Putting aside your offending, you appear to have a good and consistent work history.

You began working as a credit manager for [redacted] in 2000. You report having had panic attacks for about five years, commencing in the late 1980s.

I have carefully considered the information provided by Dr White. You were assessed by him in October of this year. I will not repeat everything he has said, nor everything said by your counsel. There is nothing in what Dr White has reported which explains or mitigates your offending.

In his opinion, you satisfy the diagnosis for a generalised anxiety disorder, a PTSD and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. I accept you may have been suffering such disorders at the time of your offending, but I am also unable to discount that aspects of your presentation to Dr White were influenced by the situation in which you find yourself, your offending having been discovered and you now having been found guilty. I accept that you may have difficulty in coping in prison and that you will benefit from engagement with mental health professionals.

As I have already said, while I have not been able to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt as to the benefit to you from your offending, it remains that this was a protracted, systematic course of dishonesty engaged in over many years. It effectively caused your employer not to invoice a customer for about $12 million and allowed that money not to be paid.

You were in a position of trust. This was deception and dishonesty on a substantial scale. It involves a very high level of moral blameworthiness.

General deterrence has particular importance. Personal deterrence also has a role to play. As I have said, this is not the first time you have deceived an employer and your conduct in this case extended over many years.

As I have said, you are not to be punished for pleading not guilty, nor for maintaining your innocence, but you are without contrition or remorse.

While there are aspects of your personal circumstances which excite sympathy, as I have said, there is nothing known to me which particularly mitigates your offending.

There is no sentencing standard for offending such as this. Many cases of longstanding deception by an employee will involve a finding about the particular benefit to the relevant individual. That is not so in this case.

Your head sentence will be seven years. In fixing your non-parole period, it is necessary to recognise that imprisonment will be difficult for you. It must be a crushing blow to be sent to prison at 63 years of age, including, of course, the separation from your husband, to whom you are devoted. That said, I am very guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation, given the duration and nature of your offending, your failure to accept responsibility and also your past offending.

I fix a non-parole period of four years and three months. The head sentence and non-parole period will date from 4 November 2021."[41]

1. On 28 February 2024, the Applicant's husband was involved in a very serious motor vehicle accident in which a woman died. He has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, causing harm by dangerous driving, driving at a speed dangerous to the public and failure to stop at the scene of an accident.[42]
2. On 7 March 2024, the Applicant's husband was released on bail, the conditions of which amongst other things, require him to remain in South Australia.[43]
3. These charges will not be dealt with by the District Court until September 2026.
4. On 16 May 2024, the Applicant's husband completed a statutory declaration. In this he relevantly states;

20. I was diagnosed with major depression in 2017. At about the same time I was also diagnosed with Coeliac disease. I lost about 30 kgs very quickly after being diagnosed, I was not well.

21 . I have been on medication for the depression since then.

22. After the car accident In February of this year, I now have a new GP and a treating psychologist. I am on new medication, and after the first few weeks I think it is starting to help. I am currently taking the following medication:

a. Mirtazapine, this is an antidepressant, and this is used primarily for the treatment of major depressive disorders;

b. Venlafaxine, this also to treat depression; and

c. Levothyroxine, this is to treat an underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism).

23. In addition to the medication and the psychologist, I try my very hardest to stay in control of my mental health with other activities and routines to keep me centred. It is so very hard now after the car accident, and I know it is going to get even harder when the court dates come.

24. I know I will be going to court on my own. I know the media will be there. I will have no one with me to support me. I have accepted that.

25. Glenda is so worried about me. We talk every day.

26. I have been suicidal from time to time after the accident, so I try very hard to stay on top of how I am feeling so that my mental state does not overwhelm me.

27. I have a lot of good friends. After Glenda was sentenced to prison, I was invited to retire from my job. I had been with my employer for 33 years.

28. We have a dog, a Groodle. I was walk her twice a day.

29. I have played tennis at the [redacted] Tennis Club since I was 15 years old. I am on the committees there, and I have lots of friends there.

30. I am a member of the [redacted] Owners Club.

31. I look after the garden and do all the home maintenance.

32. I go to Sydney two or three times a year to see my brother and his family.

34, I also have lunch with two of my oldest friends every Thursday. I have known these friends for over forty years. One of the guys is an old boss of mine who retired about 16 years ago, before all of Glenda's and my troubles started. One of these friends is 74 years old and the other is 81.

35. I try so hard to keep busy and keep my mind occupied.

36. I really want Glenda to come home so that we can be together. I know my court case will take a long time to finalise, and I don't know if I will go to prison.

37. I cannot think too far ahead, I am just trying to stay on top of the day-to-day things I have to do, for both of us.

38. Glenda has called Australia home since she was ten years old. It is the only place she knows where she has built her life, and her connections.

39. Glenda's family life was difficult. While she has a biological half-sister in the UK, there is no relationship between them and we do not know them. They would not be a support to us if we were to relocate to the UK. Glenda's parents are dead.

40. Glenda of course is a UK citizen and entitled to live there. I am an Australian citizen and I have no rights to live in the UK.

41. If Glenda were to relocate to the UK, I would of course want to go with her. I do not know if I will be able to leave Australia, or South Australia, any time soon. My bail does not let me leave South Australia right now. I do not know if I am going to prison. I do not know anything about how the next several years will look for me.

42. If I have a criminal record, then I do not know if I would be able to apply for and be granted a UK visa to be with Glenda.

43. We do not have strong ties to any country other than Australia, and uprooting our lives would be an immense challenge, especially considering my health conditions and fallout from the car accident I was in.

44. The thought of being separated from Glenda fills me with profound sadness and aggravates my already fragile mental state.

45. Her presence has been a source of relief and strength for me, especially during these incredibly difficult times. I know we have not been living together because of Glenda being in prison, but I have spent our married life supporting Glenda, and she has spent our married life supporting me. I have other family in Sydney, but really Glenda and I are all we have. We were not able to have children, in spite of years of trying and a number of miscarriages. Without Glenda by my side, navigating through life's challenges becomes even more daunting. We rely on each other completely.

46. All our family and friends are all here in Australia. Losing my wife would not only be devastating on a personal level but would also leave me without the vital support system I desperately need right now.

47. In addition to the emotional toll of separation, there are practical considerations that make it essential for my wife to remain in Australia.

48. She has been undergoing rehabilitation programs during her incarceration, aimed at her successful reintegration into society.

49. Being in Australia enables her to continue accessing these programs and support systems that are crucial for her rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the community.

50. I request you to consider the deep bond my wife and I share, the years we have invested in our relationship, and the immense hardship we would face if forced to part ways.

51 . Moreover, retaining Glenda's visa is critical for our future together.

52. If her visa is not cancelled, the parole board will consider releasing her into the community

53. This would allow us to be together, which is paramount for my well-being and mental health.

54. Having her by my side would provide the necessary support and stability I need to cope with my health challenges and the recent tragic incident. Going to court appearances on my own while my criminal charges go through the court system is going to be awful, I know it is.

55. All I want is for my wife to stay in Australia so we can be together."[44]

1. On 21 June 2024, lawyers acting for the Applicant made submissions on her behalf and requested the respondent to determine the revocation process quickly.[45]
2. On 17 July 2024, the visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test.[46]
3. On 25 July 2024, the Applicant made representations through her representative seeking a revocation of the mandatory cancellation.[47]
4. On 12 August 2024, the Applicant submitted a personal circumstances form.[48]
5. On 30 September 2024, clinical psychologist Ms Joanne Sperou, provided a report regarding the Applicant's husbands' mental health, to his solicitors.
6. This relevantly states;

"6. The possible effect on him if Mrs Burgess were to leave Australia as the result of her visa issues?

If Ms Burgess was to be deported from Australia I would be very concerned about the Grief he would experience (they have been married for 29 years). I would be concerned about ongoing social isolation, his connectivity to others worsening, a worsening of his depression and PTSD and worsening Suicidal Ideation. Mr Burgess found It difficult to remain positive and in particular an increase in Suicidal Ideation particularly on the Weekends. Mr Burgess did not have children and his next closest family member was his Brother who lived in NSW. Mr Burgess Brother rang him on a daily basis to ensure his safety and to monitor his Mental Health/ Suicidal Ideation."[49]

1. On 9 April 2025, the respondent decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.[50]
2. On 15 May 2025, the Applicant made a statutory declaration which relevantly states;

"My offending and sentencing In the District Court of South Australia

6. I want to tell the Tribunal about my offending.

7. Ever since I was first spoken to about the charges I faced, and all during the pre-trial stage, and then at trial, I have told everybody (including my beloved husband) that I was not guilty.

8. This is not true. I am guilty of the charges that were laid against me.

9. This is the very first time I have ever admitted to anyone that I am guilty.

10. I realise that me pleading not guilty for so long is a terrible thing, and that a lot of people spent a lot of time investigating me, prosecuting me, and coping with the effects of my offending. This includes the police, my former colleagues, my former employer, and all the court staff and lawyers involved.

12. All I can do is explain how the offences occurred, and what was happening in my life leading up to the offences, and while the offences took place.

13. At the time of my offending between 2009 and 2017, I was working for [redacted].

14. I was found guilty of 18 charges involving finance and amounts due to be paid to my employer, and sentenced by the judge.

16. I made one clerical error in accidentally taking a payment for one client's account from a different client's account. At the time, we were using the SAP computer system for all our company payments. Once I realised my error, I tried to fix it. Then the next month the error was not fixed, so I tried again to fix it.

17. It was like a gambler - I then found myself always trying to fix a problem that kept getting bigger and bigger.

18. By the time I realised that this was an enormous problem, I felt it was too late and I was like a duck with my legs under water, desperately scrambling to stay afloat. This went on for eight years. I was sick to my stomach the whole time, I was in this endless, ever increasing disaster that I, and I alone, had created.

19. I take full responsibility for all of this. It is no-one else's fault.

20. All I can do is tell the Tribunal what was happening in my personal life at the time! leading up to the start of this offending, and what was happening during the time of the offending.

21. I know I told everyone else that I was not guilty. I was like a rabbit in the headlights, I somehow thought I would never get investigated. Then I thought I would never get charged. Then I thought I would never really be prosecuted. Then I thought I would not be found guilty. Then I thought I would never get sent to prison. So I have been wrong about everything, every step of the way.

22. I know I have caused significant distress and cost and business damage to my former employer. No employer deserves to have an employee do what I did. I ended up paying $100,000 in compensation to my employer, that was all kept confidential. This was a civil action."[51]

1. This was the first time that the Applicant has admitted to her guilt, other than possibly to her husband.
2. On 3 June 2025, Dr Lisa Chantler, a clinical psychologist, produced a report which relevantly states:

"3.0 The Recent Statutory Declaration (15 May 2025)

I asked Mrs Burgess why she had decided to confess to her crimes at this time. She said that it was because the Tribunal "needed to see the reasons behind everything" and that she needed "to tell the truth with everything and have it out in the open". I put it to her that the timing of her "confession" might look "staged" for her immigration matter. She agreed that the Tribunal "needed to see the reasons behind everything" and to know the truth, but she denied that her decision to confess was related to a fear of being deported. Indeed, she seemed surprised that I would consider it possible that she would be deported without her confession, if at all. Of her confession, she said it is "not the be-all and end-all", adding that she was "married to an Australian citizen" and did not believe her crimes were sufficient to deport her. She said she was surprised that her visa had not been renewed but agreed that she had known nothing of the Migration Act until recently. Mrs Burgess said that "to be honest", she had been "too scared" to ask her lawyer about the possibility of her being deported and that this was "a trait of hers" - meaning that she avoided thinking about things when they became too hard."[52]

1. On 9 June 2025, the Applicant's husband produced a Statutory Declaration in support of her claim. This relevantly states;

"Our plans if Glenda is allowed to stay in Australia

39. Glenda and I own our home at [redacted address], SA. We do have a mortgage.

40. If Glenda is released direct from the [redacted] Prison into the community, then I will be at the [redacted] Prison to collect her and bring her home to our house.

41 . I understand that, if released, she will either be on parole, or on a home detention order. In either case, I understand that she will be subject to serious supervision by Correctional Services. I will make sure that Glenda is well supported during this period, and that she complies with any requirement imposed upon her.

42. Glenda received psychology help for the first six weeks from a clinical nurse. But the rest of the time she has received support from a pastor. Glenda and I both know that it will be very important to make sure she has ongoing psychological support on her release from prison. I understand that people released from prison have the best chance of a successful re-entry into the community when they have as much structured support as possible on their release. I think the psychologist will be quite important as part of that support.

43. She is already involved in knitting beanies for the homeless and veterans while in prison, and she has told me that she is keen to continue with that. I am supportive of Glenda participating in this program. I know it is nothing compared to what she has taken from the community through her offending. But I still think it is important that she gives back in whatever way she can.

44. Glenda has no plans to do any volunteering work on her release, and no plans to try to enter the workforce. She knows that her criminal history is an enormous problem, and that no employer would want her, and realistically no volunteer organisation would want her either. She just wants a quiet life at home.

45. Before going to prison Glenda was doing some study and activities at the University of [redacted] in Adelaide, which is near our house. Some of her friends and lecturers from there have been regular visitors to her in prison. Glenda is keen to return there and continue with her studies. I think this is a positive idea, and I will do what I can to support Glenda.

46. My charges are ongoing in the court system. I have been advised that if I am found guilty of the more serious charges against me, then I will likely spend time in gaol. I am terrified about this - the whole process has had an awful impact on my mental health and I am sad to say that I have even thought about taking my own life on a number of occasions, and Glenda's situation has added to my mental health situation. It has all been disastrous.

47. Glenda has been my rock throughout this process. It is a bit strange that she is supporting me through this process when she is already in prison. But I know that she is with me every step of the way. The hope that we will one day go back to our lives is what is keeping me going at the moment.

48. If Glenda is not here with me, then I will not have any support at all while I go through this court process, and after any sentencing. I can't think of anything that would be more devastating than that."[53]

1. If the Applicant were to be returned to the community, she does not intend returning to the workforce, though she would like to do volunteer work.[54]
2. The Applicant has completed various courses since her imprisonment.[55]
3. The Applicant plans to seek psychological support in the community.[56]
4. She intends to support her husband and to return to study.[57] She would have her husband's support if he is in the community.
5. The Applicant has submitted a number of letters of support for her and her husband from community members.[58]
6. If the Applicant regains the visa, she will be eligible for parole in February 2026.
7. If returned to the community, the Applicant will continue to be under parole supervision until 4 November 2028.[59]
8. If the Applicant were required to return to the UK, her husband may be prohibited from traveling with her due to his criminal charges.
9. If Mr Burgess were permitted to travel with the Applicant to the UK, he would have to leave his family and life in Australia behind. This would place great stress on their marriage.[60] It would be bad for his mental health.[61] Mr Burgess told the Tribunal that he will not relocate to the UK in any event, as all his family and friends are here.
10. The Applicant's criminal history, is annexed hereto and marked "B".[62]

1. Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
2. The Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years on 25 November 2021.[63]
3. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a "substantial criminal record" and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant. The Tribunal must consider whether "there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked".

Is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4)?

1. In considering whether to the original decision should be revoked, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ("the Direction") has application.[64]
2. For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker's application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
3. The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

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

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

1. 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.

1. Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 8.1), is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
2. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:

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

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

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

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

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out three Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:

a) Legal consequence of the decision; > > b) extent of impediments if removed; > > c) impact on Australian business interests

2. I note the importance of the Other Considerations being "other" considerations, as opposed to "secondary" considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[65]

"...Direction 65 [now Direction 110] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply."[66]

1. The Applicant's criminal record is outlined at Annexure B.

Primary Consideration 1 - Protection of The Australian Community

1. In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to 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. When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
2. Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
3. The Applicant has been convicted of repeated, aggravated crimes of dishonesty against her employer, this offending is very serious.
4. Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:

(i) causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > (ii) crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; > > (iii) any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c)); > > (iv) where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.

5. The Applicant does not pass the character test.
6. Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant's offending.
7. The Applicant has been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. This is indicative of the gravity of her offending.
8. Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;
9. The Applicant's conduct caused "substantial damage to the reputation of" her employer and it "lost several long-term customers it believes, at least in part," because of her conduct.[67]
10. The Applicant's conduct caused her "employer not to invoice a customer for about $12 million and allowed that money not to be paid".[68]
11. Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen's offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
12. The Applicant's offending was repeated over many years. But for the detection of her offending by her employer, there is no reason to suggest that the offending may not have continued.[69]
13. The fact that no credible explanation was, or indeed has since been offered for her offending, compounds this problem.
14. I note the opinion of Dr Chantler that the Applicant has an innate tendency to avoid rather than confront problems.
15. I note that for the first time, the Applicant has recently said that she takes full responsibility for her crimes and made an admission of guilt.[70]
16. This is a positive sign, however it has occurred in the context of the imminent hearing of this matter. She continues to dissemble about why she offended and continued to offend.
17. The Applicant had earlier convictions for crimes of dishonesty in 1986.[71] She did not tell her husband about them, and it seems unlikely that she told any subsequent employer either.
18. The offending of which she was convicted and sentenced on 25 November 2021, occurred over a prolonged period from August 2009 to September 2017.[72]
19. The ongoing nature of her offending indicates a trend of increasing seriousness.
20. Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant's repeated offending.
21. The cumulative effect of the Applicant's offending was very serious indeed, for her then employer, as set out above.
22. Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
23. The Applicant has provided false information on incoming passenger cards as set out above.
24. In the overall context of this matter, this failure is not significant, but it is totally consistent with her repeated failure to own up to her crimes of dishonesty.
25. Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
26. There is no evidence of this.
27. Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
28. There is no evidence of this.
29. I do not consider factors (h) and (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant's offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Visa.

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

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

(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; and > > 1. where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. 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 her offending to date, including any escalation in her 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 (Paragraph 8.1.2(1)).
2. The Applicant's offending is very serious and extended over many years.
3. The community's tolerance of any repetition of such conduct is extremely low.

Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In her request for revocation materials dated 25 July 2024 she said;

"Outline any factors you believe help explain your offending, that you want the decision-maker to take into account.

I strongly denied my charges but was found guilty. I will not be seeking future employment and look forward to giving back to society. I have always given my all to my employers and have always been a well respected employee until the last situation I found myself in.

My Husband & family are my main priority and all I want is to pay them back with all my love and support while I have been in prison and through the trial.

If you have completed any courses or programs that will help you to avoid further offending, provide details of these and attach evidence.

1. SMART RECOVERY
2. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
3. Red Cross - Mentoring Programme
4. PLP - with the Chaplin
5. Cross Roads - Certificates provided

If you previously received warning(s) from the Department or Minister and have offended since, explain any circumstances that you want the decision-maker to take into account

Provide information on what you believe to be the risk of you offending in the future, and your supporting reasons

There is no risk of me re offending. Due to my age I will not be working again and I heavily defended my charged and was very disappointed with my counsel. All I want is to spend the rest of my life with my husband and dog in our home. I will be an asset as I want to volunteer through the Red Cross and to give back to society. I would also like to volunteer to help women who find themselves in prison as a mentor."[73]

1. The Applicant's criminal conduct was protracted, premeditated and extremely serious.
2. The fact that her conduct remains inadequately explained, notwithstanding her recent admissions, makes the assessment of risk more complicated, than if a cause was known, for example a drug or gambling addiction, and it had been properly addressed by rehabilitation.
3. The fact that the Applicant does not intend to return to paid work is of some comfort, but it cannot be enforced.
4. I accept the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's innate personality suggests that her tendency to behave dishonestly, can not be logically confined to the limited context of an employment relationship. This was noted also by Kimber J. in his sentencing remarks.
5. Given her criminal history, it is unlikely that any prospective employer, if informed of her record, would place her in a position where an opportunity to reoffend existed.
6. If returned to the Community she will remain under parole supervision until 2028.
7. I note that there is no evidence to show she benefited personally in any way from her crimes.
8. I note the assessment made by Dr Chantler, that the risk of the Applicant reoffending is "very low".[74] This assessment must be tempered by a recognition of the Applicant's avoidant personality.
9. On balance, I am inclined to generally accept the opinion expressed by Dr Chantler. If the Applicant were contemplating a return to the workforce, my view may be different. As things stand, there is still some risk of the Applicant engaging in dishonest conduct of some sort.
10. Whilst any repetition of the Applicant's conduct would be unacceptable, I accept that the risk of this occurring is very low.

1. Primary consideration number one weighs against revocation of the Applicant's visa cancellation.

1. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
2. (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.
3. (2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
   1. a) 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. b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
4. The Applicant has lived in Australia since July 1968.[75]
5. The Applicant is enrolled to vote under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.[76] She has voted in Australian elections since she was 18.
6. The Applicant has a lengthy history of employment.
7. In her request for revocation materials dated 25 July 2024 she said;

"List positive contributions you have made to Australia for example, volunteer activities, participation in community and cultural activities, employment etc. Provide any references in support.

I have always worked since I left high school and have been very proactive in contributing to the employer I worked for. I have also knitted scarfs and beanies for children in need. I have also sponsored children through the Smith family.

Give details of any hardship you believe would be caused to members of the Australian community, if you were to be removed from Australia. Provide any letters of support.

My friends and support groups would be very upset to see me leave. I also attend U3A and a lot of the women visit me and write letters to me.

Do you have any concerns of fears about what would happen to you if you were to return to your country of citizenship?

At my age and due to the cost of my trial my financial and mental health are at risk. If something happened to my husband or myself we would be on our own as we would have no support.

Are there any other problems you would face if you have to return to your country of citizenship?

Losing my lifelong friends, losing my home and dog. Not being able to see my niece and nephew. A very lonely old age as I wouldn't know anyone. A lot of pressure on my marriage due to both of us having to leave everything behind."[77]

1. I also note her other statements and those of her husband, discussed above.
2. In her request for revocation materials dated 25 July 2024 she said;

"My husband Mark Burgess is my only family. My parents are deceased, and Mark and I never were able to have children of our own. Mark has been my biggest support here in gaol.

Horrifically, Mark was involved in a car accident earlier this year, and a woman died. Mark is being prosecuted for this, and he may go to gaol himself. Mark has family, they are interstate.

If Mark is found guilty of those charges, or pleads guilty, if I am returned to the UK, then his criminal record may mean that he may not be able to relocate to the UK to be with me. After 30 years together, that would mean we would be elderly and separated from each other by being on the other side of the world from each other.

I have provided more information previously to the Department.

We are the only supports each other really has, apart from friends.

I am not a risk to the Australian community. I will not work again on release, because of my age and my criminal history."[78]

"Describe your relationship with your spouse/partner (e.g. how you met, how long you have been together, future plans together):

We have been together since 1989. He visits me in prison twice a week and I call him twice a day. We are very close he is my world we mean everything to each other.

Describe any current impact or likely impact on your spouse/partner in the event of a negative decision outcome (i.e. a non-revocation or visa cancellation decision):

This would have a massive impact on my husband as we couldn't have children and our only family is in Sydney. My husband's brother and his wife and our niece and nephew mean the world to us. Also our support base is here our friends, playing sport, attending events with our lifelong friends."[79]

1. The Applicant has an adult niece (DB) and nephew (JHB), living in Sydney.[80]
2. In her request for revocation materials dated 25 July 2024 she said;

"Describe your relationship with each of the other minor child/ren, including how often you contact/see the child/ren and the role you play in their life.

"DB" - she is the daughter I could never have. Since DB was a baby I have constantly visited Sydney to see her and her family. We have had a very strong bond with her and I was devastated to miss her 21st this year. We visit Sydney as often as possible either by car or flying in for a weekend. We have always attended important occasions in her life and also important events at school and church.

"JHB" - I was lucky enough to receive the phone call that JHB was at the orphanage for them to adopt. He has a special place in my heart and we are extremely close. We ensure we attend all important events and constantly visit or call or during covid facetime. We have always spoilt him and when [redacted] and [redacted] went away for their anniversary we had both children for the week.

Describe any current impact on the other minor children, and/or any likely impact on them in the event of a negative s502 decision outcome (i.e. a non-revocation or visa cancellation/refusal decision).

Now they are older it would have a very big impact on the children. We are always in contact by texting, ringing and visiting and also if they have any issues they can come to us. As we couldn't have children we have considered them like our own and they both know this and would be devastated."[81]

1. The Applicant has a brother-in-law (PB) and a sister-in-law (JB) also living in Sydney. They are the adoptive parents of DB and JHB.
2. In her request for revocation materials dated 25 July 2024 she said;

"Describe any current impact on family members, and/or any likely impact on them in the event of a negative s501 decision outcome (i.e. a non-revocation or visa cancellation/refusal decision).

My brother in law and sister in law would be devastated as we are all very close. We have been through the deaths of our parents together and also the joy of the adoption of their two children. We are constantly going to Sydney it is like our second home and they are our only family. The two children we love and treat as if they are our own."[82]

1. The Applicant also has 3 uncles/aunts and 12 cousins in Australia.[83]
2. The greatest weight in this context must apply to the Applicant's husband who will, on all the evidence be severely affected if she is required to return to the UK.
3. He told the Tribunal that he would not follow her to the UK. He would lose his primary emotional support. This may have devastating adverse consequences for him.
4. I also note the comments contained in Dr Chantler's report.[84]

1. This consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa

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

1. The Applicant has not identified any relevant minor children.

Primary Consideration 5 - The Expectations of The Australian Community

1. In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

(a) acts of family violence; or

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

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

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

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

(f) worker exploitation.

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.

3. Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[85]

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

Analysis - Allocation of Weight to Primary Consideration 5

1. Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
   1. the Applicant's criminal record as set out in Annexure B
   2. the other matters set out above

1. Primary consideration 5 weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

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

1. The Applicant has not raised this as an issue.
2. I do accept that if the Applicant is not successful in these proceedings, she will be liable to detention and removal from Australia. This would be an adverse outcome, but one common to all unsuccessful applicants in similar proceedings.
3. Overall, this Other Consideration (a) is neutral.

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 says that she does not have a support base in the UK. She has not lived there since she was 10 years old.[86]
3. The Applicant has relatives in the UK and although I do not accept that she is as estranged from them as she would have the Tribunal believe, the connection is limited.
4. The Applicant speaks the same language but, by reason of the fact that she has been in Australia since she was 10 years old, she is to all practical intents and purposes an Australian, who would be returning to a foreign country, albeit one sharing much in common.
5. The Applicant is 66 years old. At her age adjusting to a totally new environment without any personal connections would be very difficult. This would especially be so if she was to return to the UK, as seems likely, without her husband.
6. The Applicant would face serious challenges in re-establishing herself in the UK. She may suffer from serious mental health problems as a result.
7. This consideration (b) weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

1. There was no evidence on this topic.
2. This Other Consideration (d) is neutral.

1. It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
2. Primary consideration 1 weighs against revocation.
3. Primary consideration 2 is neutral
4. Primary consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
5. Primary consideration 4 is neutral.
6. Primary consideration 5 weighs against revocation
7. Other consideration (a) is neutral
8. Other consideration (b) weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
9. Other consideration (c) is neutral.[87]
10. I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.
11. The Applicant's offending is very serious. This weighs against her, although having regard to the report of Dr Chantler, her age and the unlikelihood of her seeking further employment, I accept that her prospects of reoffending are probably very low.
12. Her recent acceptance and admission of guilt, although belated and still scarcely amounting to a full acceptance of responsibility, is a positive indicator.
13. I am satisfied that the Applicant is now very much aware that any reoffending, could result in a further visa cancellation.
14. The Applicant's ties to Australia are very strong. All her connections are here. She has lived here since she was a 10-year-old child. This factor weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
15. Perhaps most significantly, the consequences for Mr Burgess's mental health if the Applicant were to be removed to the UK, may be devastating. This is the most significant single factor in support of the Applicant's request for revocation. This is a case where the most serious adverse consequences of the visa cancellation may not in fact fall on the Applicant, but on her husband, who is an Australian citizen.
16. In my view, the factors in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation, outweigh those against revocation.
17. In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa. I find that there is "another reason" pursuant to s501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.

1. The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant's visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-two (192) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

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

Deceive another to benefit self or third person - aggravated (18)

[5] Exhibit 2: Statutory Declaration of MB at [13].

[52] Exhibit 3: Psychological Report from Dr Lisa Chandler, 4.

[53] Exhibit 2: Statutory Declaration of MB, 6-7.

[64] On 21 June 2024, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 99 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 110.

[65] [2018] FCA 594.

[74] Exhibit 3: Psychological Report from Dr Lisa Chandler.

[76] HB 106 at [2.3]; Section 93(1)(b)(ii)).

[84] Exhibit 3: Psychological Report from Dr Lisa Chandler.

[85] 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.