He went to the assistance of a neighbour who was in a wheelchair and being bullied by two other boys who lived around the corner from our home. These boys then following [RPVR] to our driveway and set upon him kicking him and punching him and kicking his knee and head when his [sic] fell down. His twin Brother ... came to his assistance and dragged him inside our house to safety. He was taken to Princess Margaret Hospital... [The] injury to his knee and leg, stopped his basketball and surfing... Soon after this [RPVR] dropped out of school in year 11 and it was the start of his personality change and his PDSD [sic]. > > Years later he was living in our home with his partner... He was going to collect [his partner] from her work in Perth as it was late night shopping. He was walking on Scarborough Beach Road to catch a bus to the train station when he was struck on the head from behind and kicked and beaten. His wallet, shoes and phone were taken. When he didn't show up to collect [his partner], both of us went looking for him, but we failed to see him lying between the path and the bushes. He lay there until about 4am when a girl he knew was passing by, she recognised him and called an ambulance... He could not speak properly when we saw him in the hospital, and it took him an extraordinarily long time to recover. His PDST [sic] increased...[4]

6. From in or about 2000 until 2017, RPVR was treated by Dr Leighton Chadwick, a consultant psychiatrist. On Dr Chadwick's evidence, RPVR has a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder type 2 which is resistant to treatment, despite years of treatment from several different psychiatrists in different settings, with many high dose medication combinations and ECT.[5] Dr Chadwick reported RPVR has been hospitalised with hypomanic and mixed mood states on numerous occasions on more than 20 occasions, and on several occasions he has been involuntarily hospitalised and treated under provisions of the various forms of the WA mental Health Act.[6] On the doctor's evidence, RPVR has frequent episodes of pathological mood disturbance, mostly depressive, which have caused periods of severe functional disturbance.[7]
7. As will appear below, RPVR has a lengthy but discontinuous history of offending conduct which commenced with traffic offences in 1996, when he was 21 years old. In the period from 1996 to 2020, other than an assault occasioning bodily harm in 2001, which Kennedy DCJ considered was out of character,[8] RPVR's interactions with police and the criminal justice system were in respect of relatively minor offences.
8. In or about 2017, RPVR's circumstances changed. He ceased employment and was granted a disability support pension. As I understand the materials, significant changes in RPVR's psychiatric treatment occurred from 2017. He ceased consulting his long-term psychiatrist, Dr Chadwick. On 12 July 2017, Dr Chadwick reported:

Despite years of treatment from several different psychiatrists in different settings, with many high dose medication combinations and ECT, RPVR's Bipolar Affective Disorder has remained resistant to treatment. He has not achieved good remission from symptoms of his psychiatric illness for more than a few months at any one time despite good adherence to the treatments prescribed. > > ... > > RPVR's illness has entered a new phase in the last few years when I have been treating him in my private practice. He experiences persistent moderate to severe depressive symptoms which are pervasive and essentially resistant to treatment... This clinically and functionally impaired state is likely to persist indefinitely. > > ... > > I treat RPVR with simple night-time sedative/hypnotic medication only... Active treatment with other usual (and sometimes unusual) medication treatments and ECT for his Bipolar Affective Disorder is no longer worth pursuing due to the long history of treatment resistance.[9]

9. On 4 December 2018, RPVR commenced treatment with Dr Sarvesh Singh, a consultant psychiatrist, who reported a history of anxiety and depressive disorders, including Panic Disorder, as well as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder in addition to Bipolar Affective Disorder type 2.[10] On Dr Singh's evidence, RPVR was a poor historian who had a long history with mental health professionals, including 34 psychiatrists.[11] The doctor reported:

[RPVR] said that when he is manic, he feels elated to the extent that he has poor sleep, isolates himself, commits crimes, and indulges in risky behaviours including sex, and would go walking the streets in the middle of the night, without any fear. When he is depressed, he feels low, has suicide ideation and negative thoughts. He has made several suicide attempts in the past... > > [RPVR] stated he wanted ECT treatment as he reported this has been of benefit to him in the past... > > ... He had partial judgement and insight. > > ... Risk is low.[12]

10. In the period from 2020 to 2024, RPVR's interactions with police and the criminal justice system increased. He became homeless. He engaged in acts of violence. In 2022, RPVR was convicted of an assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to a 16-month term of imprisonment which was conditionally suspended for 2 years. RPVR breached the conditions of the suspension and on 27 June 2024 he was sentenced to serve 8 months of the suspended term of imprisonment with a 4-month non-parole period.[13]
11. While he was incarcerated, on 22 October 2024, RPVR's Visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act and he was invited to make representations about revocation of this decision.[14]
12. RPVR requested revocation of the Visa cancellation decision and made representations.[15]
13. On 19 November 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the Visa cancellation decision.[16]
14. RPVR applied for review of this decision by the Tribunal.[17]

1. The review application is to be determined under s 501CA(4) of the Act:

(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if: > > (a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied: > > (i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or > > (ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

2. As RPVR made representations in accordance with the invitation to do so, the threshold in s 501CA(4)(a) is met.
3. There is no dispute RPVR fails to pass the 'character test' for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as he was sentenced to a 16-month term of imprisonment exceeding the threshold of a substantial criminal record in s 501(7)(c) for the purposes of s 501(6)(a). I am satisfied this is correct. It is not to the point that, initially, the sentence was wholly suspended.
4. The issue remaining under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the Visa cancellation decision.

1. Deciding this issue, the Tribunal is bound to comply with directions issued by the Minister under s 499(1) of the Act, namely 'Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA' (Direction).
2. The Direction sets out objectives and principles which guide decision-making. These include the principles in s 5.2:
   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 measureable 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.
   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 non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not 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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. Considerations which must be taken into account where relevant and related instructions are set out in Part 2 of the Direction:

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.

4. Taking the relevant considerations into account

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the following are primary considerations:

(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;

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

...

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

(a) legal consequences of the decision;

(b) extent of impediments if removed;

(c) impact on Australian business interest

1. Consistent with the principle the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and the statement in s 8.1(1) of the Direction, the Government is committed to protecting the community from harm resulting from criminal conduct or other serious conduct by non-citizens, protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration which is generally to be given greater weight than other considerations. This is reinforced by the principle that remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation they are law abiding, will respect important institutions and do not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. Within this framework, the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct must be considered.

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:

(a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > > (i) violent and/or sexual crimes; > > > > (ii) crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; > > > > (iii) acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > (b) 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; > > (c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes; > > (d) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; > > (e) the cumulative effect of repeated offending; > > (f) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; > > (g) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour). > > (h) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

2. In s 4(2) of the Direction, 'serious conduct' is given an expansive meaning which includes behaviour or conduct of concern that does not constitute a criminal offence, such as intimidatory behaviour and behaviour which represents a danger to the Australian community. For the purposes of the Direction, the seriousness of a non-citizen's conduct is informed by the considerations set out in s 8.1(1), including the Government's views in respect of the crimes and conduct referred to in s 8.1(1)(a) and (b).
3. It is important to comprehend what the Direction requires when evaluating the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's conduct and determining the weight that should be given. The Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence of the conviction and sentence and related relevant factual matters. The kinds of conduct that are viewed 'very seriously' or are considered to be 'serious' by the Australian government are broadly described in s 8.1.1(1)(a) and (b) of the Direction. The nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's crime or conduct and the weight that should be given is a matter for evaluative assessment in the particular circumstances.[18]
4. RPVR's offences include:

(a) common assault (2024, 2022 and 2021); > > (b) threaten to kill (2024); > > (c) criminal damage (2024 and 2022); > > (d) trespassing (2024 and 2007); > > (e) stealing (2024 and 2007); > > (f) breach of family violence orders, violence restraining orders, community-based orders and protective bail conditions (2024, 2021 and 2020); > > (g) assault occasioning bodily harm (2022 and 2002); > > (h) assault of a public officer (2022); > > (i) disorderly behaviour (2022, 2021, 2008 and 2006); > > (j) driving offences (2021, 2012, 2008, 2006 and 1996); > > (k) burglary (2009 and 2007); > > (l) obstructing a public officer (2008); > > (m) providing false information to police (2007); > > (n) behaving in a violent manner on a railway (2007); > > (o) possess prohibited or controlled weapon without excuse (2007); and > > (p) deprivation of liberty (2002).[19]

5. RPVR asserts he understands why, on paper, my history of assault and breaches of orders is viewed with concern.[20] He stated:

My offending has never been calculated or predatory: it has been the symptomatic byproduct of a man in the midst of psychiatric crisis, often while homeless and abandoned by the social safety net. > > I am not a "criminal" in the traditional sense; I am a patient who has undergone over 20 psychiatric hospitalizations and survived over 300 electroconvulsive therapies(ECT). My recent offending occurred on the background of being homeless for three years. When I was homeless I lost access to the very medications -Dexamphetamine, Alprazolam and Zolpidem - that kept me stable. Without a home, I wasn't able to maintain the "frequent emotional and practical support" my doctor stated was essential for my survival. > > My choice to not adhere to a medication regime was not one of free will whilst homeless, given the choice between buying food and buying medication it was one made under extreme duress as a matter of survival. Having a comorbidity of ADHD and Bipolar Type 2 disorder essentially means that both my disorders share behavioural traits of impulsivity and distractibility but they differ fundamentally in how those symptoms appear and persist... My life has been a struggle. When I have been homeless and unable to afford medication I have struggled to break an impulse or calm a reaction and have been rendered physiologically incapable of doing so. > > As I age my diagnosis has changed to one of a more severe outlook when it comes to my Bipolar. What this means is that the intervals between manic highs and depressive lows shorten, inevitably leading to an illness which is more defined by the major lows rather than the manic highs I have experienced. Even though the outlook is one of an increased risk of suffering the depressive lows associated with Bipolar the positive side of this statement is that not having to battle the extremes of mania means my life is less prone to interruptions of mania.[21]

6. RPVR gave extensive evidence in respect of the factual circumstances of his offending conduct. He contests the factual basis of offences to which he entered guilty pleas and related factual allegations set out by police in Statement of Material Facts, and argues there is no bar on the Tribunal reviewing related contextual facts. As I comprehend his submissions, the basis on which he cavils with such factual matters runs on three legs. Firstly, he asserts from 2020 his mental illnesses were largely untreated and he was adversely affected by symptoms which affected his understanding. Secondly, he alleges he entered guilty pleas on the basis of legal advice where his understanding of the charges and facts did not align with the charges and facts addressed by the sentencing magistrate or judge. And thirdly, his pleas of guilt and his acceptance of facts alleged by police were coloured by his fear of involuntary confinement in a mental hospital if he fully disclosed the nature and extent of his mental illness and related symptoms. He contends this was informed by legal advice he was given and he adverted to intoxication with alcohol in attempting to diminish the significance of symptoms of his mental illness.
7. The revocation power in s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act is predicated on satisfaction the person passes the 'character test' set out in s 501 or there being 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. Where the person fails to pass the character test on evidence of conviction and sentence, the conviction and sentencing facts on which that test turns cannot be impugned for the purposes of deciding if there is 'another reason' to exercise the revocation power.[22] At the level of principle, the Tribunal cannot entertain evidence or make factual findings which contradict or go behind such a conviction.
8. RPVR fails the character test as, on 20 October 2022, he was sentenced to a 16-month term of imprisonment.[23] For the purposes of the character test, it is immaterial the sentence was wholly suspended.
9. RPVR was convicted and sentenced on a guilty plea without relevant factual matters being tested or tried. His plea may be relied upon as an admission of guilt to all essential ingredients of the offence,[24] namely the legal elements of the offence and related facts placed before the court.[25]
10. The conviction and sentencing facts are recited in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings before Magistrate Young[26] and the police Statement of Material Facts.[27] I accept these are the facts of the assault occasioning bodily harm offence RPVR committed on 1 December 2021. RPVR consumed a large amount of alcohol with a female associate ("BR"), who police alleged was his ex-partner, and BR's male friend. RPVR violently assaulted the male friend: RPVR approached the victim as he lay asleep on the loungeroom floor, and began violently attacking and assaulting him.[28] The victim spent 2 nights in hospital and received multiple head, neck and body injuries, including a split lip, bruising to his ribs, bruising and swelling to the neck and fluid around the spine and a possible brain bleed.[29] Magistrate Young described this as a serious prolonged and sustained assault driven by drinking alcohol to excess and jealousy when sentencing RPVR.[30] The Magistrate allowed a reduction of sentence on account of RPVR's guilty plea and observed:

... the potential reduction in culpability that might be brought about by an illness such as bipolar is counterbalanced if you compromise that diagnosis by drinking alcohol to excess.[31]

11. In his oral evidence, RPVR contests the police account of the facts of this offence, and he asserts his guilty plea was not given unequivocally. He staunchly maintains he was never in an intimate personal relationship with BR.
12. Lest there be any doubt, I give greater weight to the essential facts of the offence accepted by the Court than to the version of events RPVR provided in his oral evidence. As will appear, there are real questions about the reliability of RPVR's memory and the weight that can be given to his unsupported memory evidence. Nevertheless, the allegation BR was RPVR's ex-partner is open to question. The available materials are not sufficient to make a positive finding on this point.
13. RPVR gave evidence of experiencing memory problems as a result of his mental illness and related treatment, particularly bilateral electroconvulsive therapy. Having heard his evidence, his memory issues are amply demonstrated. I accept he has a variable and patchy memory in which he finds it difficult to recall details of past events, even recent events, and to place such events into a factual or chronological order. It is for this reason there are real questions about the reliability of RPVR's evidence which relies on his memory without reliable corroboration. This reduces the weight which can be given to his unsupported evidence.
14. To the extent RPVR asserts in these proceedings, for the first time, his guilty pleas in respect of this and other charges were not unequivocally given, it is not for the Tribunal to make findings which controvert acceptance of such pleas by Courts, as to do so would contravene the legal basis on which the Courts convicted and sentenced RPVR. The Tribunal exercises the administrative review jurisdiction conferred upon it by s 500 of the Act and related statutory powers. It is not a court.
15. I have carefully considered RPVR's oral and other evidence addressing his conduct and related circumstances, including contextual factual matters relating to offences to which he entered guilty pleas. His evidence does not alter the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct in which he engaged. Magistrate Young described RPVR's prior criminal record as short but serious, and with a concerning escalation of violence in recent times.[32]
16. I am satisfied RPVR engaged in violent crimes, violent crimes against women and an act of family violence, which are viewed very seriously within the terms of s 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction. He also engaged in criminal conduct against police which is viewed as serious within the terms of s 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii).
17. The nature and seriousness of his conduct is amply demonstrated in the following examples.
18. On 26 October 2023, RPVR went with BR for her to acquire drugs from another woman. He alleges he waited outside while BR went into the woman's house, but after a while he became concerned for her welfare. The police Statement of Material Facts alleges he forcibly entered the woman's house without her consent and assaulted her, pushing her against the cupboard and pushed the victim forcefully in the chest.[33] He smashed an elephant statue and a window, and stole a camera. He shouted profanities at the victim and he threatened "I will kill you because you are a niger and I'm a half niger so fuck you, you black slut".[34] Magistrate Young considered this conduct to be serious[35] and concluded the assault, albeit not being physically of a serious nature,[36] was aggravated by RPVR being on the victim's private property, by the damage he caused and his highly intimidating, vile, and demeaning threats and abuse which was aggravated by a racial component.[37] RPVR entered guilty pleas to all the charges arising from this incident. Magistrate Young noted a concerning escalation of violence in recent times in RPVR's record in the context of his bipolar condition and a level of non-compliance with medication and complications with alcohol use.[38] These considerations and the seriousness of RPVR's conduct are reflected in the Magistrate's sentencing decision whereby, as RPVR had been held on remand for 8 months, he was to serve 8 months of his suspended 16 month term of imprisonment.
19. In oral evidence, RPVR accepted he entered a guilty plea to all charges arising from this incident and it was on this basis and the relevant facts placed before the Court, he was convicted and sentenced. This notwithstanding, he gave a different account of his conduct in this incident which does not align with the facts on which he was convicted and sentenced and his guilty plea. While RPVR's oral evidence includes some contextual factors which inform his motive, I prefer and give greater weight to the conviction and sentencing facts recited by the Magistrate.[39]
20. RPVR pleaded guilty to charges arising from an incident on 5 July 2022. The Court accepted his guilty plea and recited the relevant facts. On those facts, after drinking alcohol RPVR became aggressive and assaulted a female housemate, BR, by striking her across the face with his hand,[40] having forced his way into her bedroom, after which he assaulted a female neighbour BR called for assistance. The police Material Statement of Facts alleges:

[RPVR] grabbed the victim's jacket and shook her, then threw her down onto the staircase where the accused [sic - victim] felt immediate pain to both her shoulders. [RPVR] repeatedly kicked the victim to her legs, groin, ribs and back causing her substantial pain. > > The victim received bruising to her right foot, inner left forearm and scratches to her upper right arm and right hand, causing an open wound. [41]

21. In related sentencing remarks, Magistrate De Maio described this as a very frenzied attack on her particularly vulnerable person and considered it to be at the high end of the scale [of seriousness] for assaults.[42] The Magistrate noted RPVR's mental health issues and his guilty plea in sentencing him to a 12-month community-based order.[43]
22. RPVR cavils with the facts accepted by the Court. He asserts he did not strike his female housemate. I prefer and give greater weight to the facts Magistrate De Maio recited.
23. On 25 March 2022, police allege in a Statement of Material Facts that RPVR was located in a driveway outside his home yelling and swearing and not wearing any clothing and he shoved [an officer] to the chest with his left hand in an open palm whereupon police attempted to restrain him but he again shoved [the officer] away with his right hand in an open palm.[44] RPVR was charged with Assault Public Officer to which he entered a guilty plea. In sentencing RPVR to a 4-month term of imprisonment (which was conditionally suspended), Magistrate Young considered the assault to be at the lower end of the scale.[45] RPVR accepts the facts of this incident and submits he was clearly mentally unwell at the time.
24. On 18 October 2021, police allege RPVR was involved in a loud argument with a woman and, when police arrived, he immediately approached them outside the address yelling and swearing.[46] RPVR is reported to have become_._ more hostile and aggressive towards police shouting that he would hurt officers, and he continued to be highly aggressive, shouting profanities for approximately 10 minutes. Police noted RPVR's explanation: "I've been trying to get help".[47] He was arrested, charged and convicted of disorderly conduct in a public place, and sentenced to a fine of $800.[48]
25. There is evidence RPVR engaged in verbally aggressive conduct against his then female partner ("NP") on 9 September 2020 and he physically assaulted a male associate she called for assistance.[49] He was charged and entered a guilty plea to this offence for which he was convicted and sentenced to a $1,200 fine.[50] RPVR was subsequently found to have breached the protective conditions of bail he was granted for this offence, contacting the protected person by telephone and being found in her company.[51]
26. Prior to these incidents, there is an extensive period in which no convictions are recorded against RPVR. He committed a drink driving offence on 7 January 2012,[52] and in the preceding period from 17 September 2006 to 6 January 2009 he engaged in criminal conduct including two burglaries and a stealing offence,[53] two disorderly behaviour offences involving police,[54] one obstruct public officer offence,[55] one reckless driving offence while drunk offence,[56] and five other more minor offences involving trespass, possession of a prohibited weapon, giving false details to police, failing to produce a valid ticket and behaving in a violent manner on a railway.[57]
27. There is one further significant incident on 15 June 2001 which requires consideration. RPVR was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty. The facts are set out in the sentencing remarks of Kennedy DCJ.[58] On those facts, RPVR and his brother violently intervened in an argument between an associate and a visitor who was accompanied by his mother. They dragged the visitor inside a house where he was pulled to the floor and Both offenders repeatedly kicked the complainant in the upper body and punched him in the face until the assault ceased when the man's mother grabbed one of the offenders in the groin.[59] Kennedy DCJ considered this to be an extremely serious matter, albeit conduct which was out of character to which RPVR entered a guilty plea.[60] The victim suffered severe swelling and bruising to the face and an injured right knee. RPVR was sentenced to an 18-month community-based order, including an anger management program and 120 hours community service.[61] In this assault, on the facts Kennedy DCJ set out, RPVR did not really know the victim yet violently assaulted him in a dispute over clothing. This sharpens the concern about RPVR's conduct in this incident.
28. RPVR gave evidence of the factual context of this incident which I have carefully considered. It is not for the Tribunal to go behind the facts Kennedy DCJ accepted, on which basis RPVR was convicted and sentenced for the offence to which he entered a guilty plea.
29. The Minister contends RPVR engaged in at least two incidents of family violence which did not result in charges, and the Family Violence Restraining Orders in evidence are sufficient to establish he engaged in such conduct, which is viewed very seriously. I will address these matters in more detail, below.
30. RPVR was sentenced to fines, community-based orders and, on 16 September 2009, he was first sentenced to a term of imprisonment on conviction of Burglary and Commit Offence in Place. The 8-month term to which he was sentenced was conditionally suspended for 18 months. On 6 July 2022, he was sentenced to a further 16-month term of imprisonment on conviction of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm and Assault Public Officer, which was also conditionally suspended. Following breach of the suspension conditions in October 2023, RPVR was incarcerated for an 8-month custodial term.
31. Without detracting from the very serious nature of RPVR's violent conduct, the sentences imposed are consistent with the relative seriousness of his conduct in the context of his mental illness. Alcohol appears to be a very significant factor which intersects with RPVR's bipolar affective disorder, PTSD, anxiety and depression, as well as the pharmacological treatments he was prescribed for these disorders and his ability or failure to access such treatment.
32. Despite there being no direct evidence from the victims of RPVR's violent assaults, it is clear enough his victims of his offending conduct experienced adverse physical and emotional impacts.
33. There is a concerning but pattern evident in RPVR's offending conduct, particularly from 2020. The pattern is one of apparent propensity to violent dysregulation in which his mental illness and abuse of alcohol are probably significant factors. The psychiatric evidence establishes that RPVR experiences severe and enduring functional impairments in most domains of self care, relationships, cognitive functioning, and behaviour.[62]
34. Nevertheless, there have been lengthy periods in which RPVR has not been convicted of offending conduct, for example from 1996 to 2002, from 2009 to 2012, and from 2012 to 2020. When considering RPVR's record, Magistrate Young observed your record indicates that you are capable of keeping out of trouble for an extended period of time, and that in turn suggests that you are capable of managing your condition in a pro-social way.[63] This is plainly correct. The frequency of his offending conduct increased sharply from 2020. RPVR explained, and I accept, this was in the context of changes in his personal circumstances which adversely affected his behaviour. I understand RPVR ceased employment and, in or about 2017, he was granted a disability support pension. He was residing in a rental property but struggled to afford the increasing rent. In or about December 2021, RPVR was evicted.[64] He then became homeless and itinerant.
35. RPVR explained he made a series of bad decisions, including not informing his family of his actual circumstances. For a time, he resided in a tent in sand dunes and in a church storeroom. RPVR gave evidence he did not disclose his true circumstances to family members but told his mother he intended to go surfing and camping. His parents purchased a vehicle with a roof-top tent for him to use.
36. Things did not go well. On his account, he was unable to afford and did not take medications he required to manage his mental condition. There is no record of this being disclosed to Dr Singh, his treating psychiatrist. It is possible RPVR did not fill prescriptions he was given as, on 7 February 2020, Dr Singh reported RPVR should not be supplied with Zolpidem as he had too many left over scripts and sought a second psychiatric opinion in respect of further treatment options.[65] The doctor subsequently added Dexamphetamine to RPVR's treatment regimen.[66] On 21 August 2020, Dr Singh reported RPVR was well to some extent on the new treatment regime, although he has a tendency to use medications more than prescribed, which is not good for him, and he has deteriorated on higher doses.[67] The doctor also reported RPVR cannot see me regularly in the outpatient rooms due to financial constraints.[68] Subsequently, on 5 February 2021, 13 September 2021, 18 July 2022 and 9 May 2023, Dr Singh reported RPVR was taking and he remains stable on the prescribed medications.
37. This conclusion must be viewed in the context of RPVR's offending conduct and dysregulated behaviour. He became verbally aggressive and violent on 9 September 2020.[69] On 25 October 2020, police noted RPVR was verbally abusive to NP and he abuses prescribed medication dexamphetamines and he was alcohol dependent.[70] On 1 December 2021, RPVR engaged in a prolonged and serious violent assault occasioning bodily harm.[71] On 5 July 2022, he physically assaulted a woman which the sentencing magistrate described as a very frenzied attack.[72] On 10 August 2023, RPVR was involved in a violent incident with BR in which he admitted he was drunk.[73] And on 26 October 2023, he engaged in a physical assault of a woman in her own home which was aggravated by racial abuse,[74] in respect of which the sentencing magistrate stated there has been a level of non-compliance with medication and complications with alcohol use.[75]
38. The Minister asserts there is a trend of increasing seriousness in RPVR's criminal conduct. This is consistent with RPVR's history of violent assaults occasioning bodily harm in June 2001 and December 2021 and common assaults in September 2020, July 2022 and October 2023. There has been an escalation in the frequency of his serious conduct from 2020.
39. The cumulative effect of RPVR's repeated offending is demonstrated by the evident drain on police and court resources, to which the treatment of victims in the health system could be added. So much can be inferred from the relevant materials.
40. RPVR's conviction in 2007 in respect of Give False Personal Details to Police, for which he was fined $200, demonstrates a level of dishonesty when dealing with police. This is a singular offence which has not been repeated. Nevertheless, he has engaged in aggressive and abusive conduct against police on at least 6 occasions.[76]
41. RPVR's most significant crimes and his most serious conduct involve acts of violence, including violence against women and police. His conduct has caused substantial harm to victims and to the Australian community. This goes to the weight which should be given.
42. Considering the frequency, escalation and cumulative effect, including on victims, of RPVR's 'very serious' and 'serious conduct' for the purposes of s 8.1.1 of the Direction, I am satisfied the nature and seriousness of his conduct weighs in favour of affirming the decision to cancel his Visa.

1. It is the Government's stated view the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. The principle in s 5.2(6) provides for 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. Under the principle in s 5.2(7), some conduct is so serious any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable.
2. In assessing the risk RPVR might pose to the Australian community, consideration must be given to the matters set out in 8.1.2.(2) separately and 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; and

(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 (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

(c) 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.

1. In this context, relevant static and dynamic factors should be considered:

It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like. [77]

2. The consequences likely to stem from repetition of RPVR's criminal and serious conduct turn on objective evaluation of the circumstances of his conduct rather than generalisations about his offences and sentences.[78]
3. Objectively, the violent assaults RPVR engaged in are likely to have caused physical and emotional harm to victims. The physical injuries described in sentencing remarks demonstrate the nature of the harm caused by RPVR's conduct in those incidents.[79] Should he engage in further such conduct, including assaults on public officers, on women, or in a domestic context, any victims would likely suffer physical and emotional harm. There is an obvious risk of greater harm should the level of RPVR's violent conduct increase. This is a matter of significant concern in the context of RPVR's history of dysregulated behaviour and his propensity to engage in impulsive or reactive violent conduct, especially when affected by alcohol.
4. Repetition of RPVR's burglary, stealing and property damage offences would likely cause financial harm to any victims. Should he engage in further disorderly behaviour in public or breach court orders, public order and equanimity would likely be harmed, women would be placed at risk of harm, and the work of police and the judicial system would be additionally burdened. Further traffic offences would place road users at risk of physical and other harms.
5. The likelihood of RPVR engaging in further serious conduct is informed by considerations relating to his mental condition, including his compliance with and the likely efficacy of prescribed treatments, his use of alcohol, his personal circumstances and his access to relevant treatment and supports.
6. On the evidence of Dr Chadwick, RPVR's mental health conditions are largely resistant to treatment, and the doctor prescribed simple night-time sedative/hypnotic medication only.[80] This is consistent with (and not contra-indicated by) the reports of Dr Sarvesh Singh and Dr Edward Fearon (consultant psychiatrists).[81] On 21 March 2025, Dr Fearon reported RPVR's account of a long history of inattention, rage/impulse control issues and anxiety and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, ADHD, Borderline Personality Disorder, BPAD Type 2, intermittent explosive disorder.[82] I note Dr Fearon refused to prescribe Alprazolam or Dexamphetamine in a detention setting due to institutional risks of stand over behaviour/trading.[83]
7. I accept RPVR's compliance with medical treatment is affected by his financial and other circumstances. He explained when he was homeless and reliant on a disability support pension, he could not afford to pay for the treatments he requires. He explained he did not disclose his real circumstances to his parents and, for this reason, he did not seek their assistance. He now regrets this and explained he now comprehends the extent to which he needs and relies on their support to manage his mental health condition. RPVR's evidence on these matters must be approached with clear-eyed scepticism. There is evidence he abused prescription medications, including dexamphetamine and benzodiazepine medications, as well as alcohol.
8. On the latter point, there is conflicting evidence of RPVR's use of alcohol. On the one hand, in medical records RPVR is recorded with a history of a chronic alcohol problem,[84] consuming 30 drinks/day.[85] In representations to the Minister, RPVR stated My latest relapse stemmed from losing my job and not having (or asking for) my daily medication and turning to alcohol instead.[86] In oral evidence, RPVR alleged this statement is not correct. He explained that he made this statement and similar admissions in respect of alcohol in court proceedings in order to shield the true extent of symptoms of his mental illnesses and related perceptions of legal consequences related to involuntary hospitalisation, which were informed by his then legal representatives. From an evidentiary perspective this is problematic as it raises questions about the reliability of RPVR's evidence. In the assessment of risk it is less significant, as it is probable RPVR becomes increasingly mentally unstable, dysregulated or disinhibited and prone to engage in offending conduct and impulsive or reactive behaviour, including violent outbursts, when affected by the unmanaged symptoms of his mental illness as well as when he is intoxicated with alcohol.
9. In all likelihood, if RPVR misuses prescription medications, as reported by Dr Singh on 7 February 2020, [87] or he abuses alcohol in future, this would increase the risk of him engaging in further serious conduct and the associated risk of harm. The same conclusion can be drawn if RPVR's mental illnesses are not effectively managed by regular medication or other psychiatric treatments.
10. There is little evidence of protective or mitigating factors.
11. Even though RPVR has some insight into his mental conditions and his offending conduct, there is little to suggest he has positively engaged in rehabilitative activities[88] or treatment of relevance to his offending conduct, or in respect of his abuse of alcohol.
12. During the hearing, RPVR repeatedly expressed sorrow and remorse for his offending conduct and the harm he caused to victims. His words are not supported by reliable evidence of positive rehabilitative action. His expressions of remorse must be viewed through the lens of his denial of facts on which he was convicted and sentenced.
13. RPVR's mother, "GC", has given evidence she will support him if his Visa is reinstated. She stated:

... he has a home with me. I will ensure that he is seen by mental health professionals and will take him to medical appointments. I will reinstate his private health cover. I will help him with day-to-day support. > > I have also made arrangements with [RPVR] and his Twin Brother ... that should I become unable to look after [him] that [his brother] will take him to live with him in Sydney. He will look after his everyday needs and establish mental health care for him.

14. In representations given to the Minister, GC stated:

I ensure that [RPVR] see the dentist and has his eyes examined and is taking his medication and seeing his psychiatrist on a regular basis. I was shocked to see he has put on so much weight and has teeth missing. I ensure that he has clean clothes and has his hair cut.[89]

15. GC's evidence must be considered in the context of RPVR's homelessness and his personal circumstances from 2020. It is probable GC supported RPVR to engage with Dr Singh at the Perth Clinic Medical Suites from 2018 to 2020. Even though Dr Singh report Risk is low on 4 December 2018, the majority of RPVR's offending conduct occurred thereafter, despite GC's support. It is probable, RPVR became distanced or even estranged[90] from his family when he was homeless. He asserts he regrets this and it was a mistake which will not happen again as he now realises he depends upon his family for support to manage his mental condition. The strength of RPVR's resolve to do so has not been tested.
16. Considering this, there are real questions about CG's capability to ensure RPVR adheres to a regular treatment regimen and he manages his mental illness in a pro-social manner. Even though RPVR asserts he is committed to a stable environment under my Mothers care to ensure these incidents never recur,[91] this is untested and there is little to suggest RPVR would not resume his previous associations, activities and behaviours.
17. Without evidence of a thorough risk assessment, the objective level of risk is difficult to gauge. On 21 August 2024 in a Parole Review Report, an Assistant Superintendent Operations reported:

RPVR has no prior history of community supervision and it is considered that a period of parole which includes supervision requirements to engage in community based treatment programs and counselling, will reduce his risk of re-offending. [92]

18. While RPVR's incarceration may well have had a salutary effect, as he asserts, the level of his non-compliance with previous community-based orders suggests the reduction in risk suggested in the Parole Review Report might be somewhat optimistic. There is scant evidence of RPVR's prospects of gaining employment. Viewed in the context of his mental and other health conditions, on the psychiatric evidence, this is remote.
19. It is not established RPVR has broken the cycle of regularity the plurality referred to in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo.[93] Despite his protestations to the contrary, the record of his previous serious conduct may well be a reliable guide to what he might do in the future should he be released into the Australian community. Of course, this is far from certain and to a large extent it is likely to turn on RPVR's capacity to effectively manage his mental health and to abstain from alcohol and abuse of prescription medications (or other drugs).
20. I am satisfied there is a medium to high level of risk RPVR might engage in further serious conduct which would cause harm to Australians or the Australian community.
21. Evaluating the nature and seriousness of RPVR's offending conduct and the level of risk in the context of his mental illnesses and previous abuse of alcohol, overall, the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community weighs against revoking the Visa cancellation decision.

1. Family violence is a primary consideration under s 8.2 of the Direction. The Government's serious concerns about allowing a non-citizen who engages in family violence to remain in Australia is proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence the non-citizen has engaged in. The term 'family violence' is given a broad and inclusive meaning in s 4.1(1) of the Direction.
2. Subsection 8.2(3) sets out the following factors which must be considered:

(3) In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant: > > a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; > > b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence; > > c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including: > > i. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct; > > ii. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children); > > iii. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and > > d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since Otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

3. The Minister contends RPVR engaged in two incidents of family violence, albeit that these did not result in charges or any conviction. These allegations arise from police Incident Reports which were squarely put to RPVR during the hearing. The Minister submits the Family Violence Restraining Orders RPVR was issued are evidence he engaged in family violence.
4. RPVR flatly and staunchly denies he engaged in family violence.
5. The issue requires consideration of the definition of 'family violence' in s 4(1) of the Direction, namely (examples omitted):

family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.

6. The term 'member of the person's family' is given the following meaning:

member of the person's family, for the purposes of the definition of the definition of family violence, includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.

7. It is also necessary to consider the legislation under which the Family Violence Restraining Orders were issued, namely the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). Under s 63(4) of this enactment, a court is not to make a Family Violence Restraining Order restraining order unless it is satisfied of the matters set out in s 10D and it has had regard to the matters set out in 10F. Section 10D relevantly provides that:

_(1) A court may make an FVRO if it is satisfied that - _

(a) the respondent has committed family violence against a person seeking to be protected and the respondent is likely again to commit family violence against that person in the future; or

(b) a person seeking to be protected, or a person who has applied for the order on behalf of that person, has reasonable grounds to apprehend that the respondent will commit family violence against the person seeking to be protected.

...

1. Under s 62A, Police are required to investigate where there is a reasonable suspicion of family violence and then take action in compliance with s 62C, including either applying for a restraining order or issuing a police order.
2. The following definitions of 'family violence' is set out in s 5A:

_(1) A reference in this Act to family violence is a reference to - _

(a)

violence, or a threat of violence, by a person towards a family member of the person; or

(b) any other behaviour or pattern of behaviour by the person that coerces or controls the family member or causes the member to be fearful.

1. By definition in s 4(3), a 'family member' is a person who is in a 'family relationship' with another person. 'Family relationship is defined in s 4(1):

(1) In this Act -

family relationship _means a relationship between 2 persons - _

(a) ...; or

(b) who are, or were, in a de facto relationship with each other; or

(c) who are, or were, related to each other; or

(d) ...; or

(e) ...; or

(f) who have, or had, an intimate personal relationship, or other personal relationship, with each other; or

(g) one of whom is the former spouse or former de facto partner of the other person's current spouse or current de facto partner.

_(2) In subsection (1) - _

other personal relationship means a personal relationship of a domestic nature in which the lives of the persons are, or were, interrelated and the actions of one person affects, or affected, the other person;

...

1. RPVR accepts he was in an intimate personal relationship with NP in 2020. It is probable that NP or her former spouse and her twin children are the people protected under the Family Violence Restraining Order issued by the Rockingham Magistrates Court against RPVR on 29 October 2020 (names have been redacted on the materials before the Tribunal).[94] It is probable NP was the person protected under the Family Violence Restraining Order issued by the Perth Magistrates Court against RPVR on 20 November 2020.[95] The factual circumstances in which these orders were issued are not clear. As I comprehend the sequence of events, on 10 September 2020, RPVR entered into a bail undertaking for the protection of NP arising from an assault charge in which her husband was the complainant and she was a witness. On 14 October 2020, RPVR pleaded guilty to a consensual breach[96] of this undertaking for which he was convicted and fined.[97]
2. It is possible, as the Minister contends, one or both of the Family Violence Restraining Orders were issued following the incident involving disputation between RPVR and NP on 25 October 2020.[98] It is also possible one or both orders were issued in the context of RPVR's breach of bail offence on 14 October 2020, which was dealt with on that day in the Perth Magistrates Court by Magistrate Campione.[99] In any event, RPVR breached the 20 November 2020 order by contacting the protected person by telephone and leaving an abusive message. By his own account, this was in outraged response to a text message NP's former spouse allegedly sent to RPVR which contained a salacious comment about a photograph of his daughter surfing.
3. On this material, two inferences could be drawn: that RPVR engaged in family violence against NP and he was likely to engage in further family violence against her, or that NP sought protection from him on reasonable grounds. Beyond this it is not possible to go on the available materials. Even if the former inference is drawn, the nature, extent and seriousness of any family violence RPVR committed are not established.
4. The Minister incidents on 25 October 2020 and on 10 August 2023 meet the threshold of 'family violence'. There are two difficulties making findings in respect of what occurred in each of these incidents.
5. Firstly, RPVR's evidence is reliant on his memory without reliable corroboration. Even though he asserts he has a clear memory of each incident, his memory is faulty and unreliable. In all likelihood, he had been drinking and was affected by alcohol to some degree. This adds to the unreliability of his recollections. For this reason, I am not positively satisfied his version of events is made out, although it cannot be ruled out.
6. Secondly, the police recitation of alleged facts in each incident relies on accounts given by NP, and by BR and an alleged witness. RPVR disputes the accuracy and reliability of these accounts. The accounts reported by police have not been tested. BR was in a severely intoxicated condition, and it is likely NP was affected by alcohol when giving her account to police. This reduces the reliability of their reported accounts. The witness account of RPVR's actions does not squarely align with the injuries police reported sighting on BR's left arm and lip. Furthermore, the witness did not consider what she allegedly witnessed before leaving the caravan park was out of the ordinary. It is not possible to know what the witness meant by this comment. RPVR is a physically large man, and one might expect if he was witnessed grabbing a woman with both hands and aggressively pulling her towards him this would register some level of concern, out of the ordinary. From this distance, there are many uncertainties and open questions which cannot safely be answered by reasonable inference. For this reason, I am not positively satisfied on the accounts reported by police that the alleged facts they describe are made out.
7. With regard to the incident on 25 October 2020, police allege RPVR and NP were drinking alcohol and engaged in an argument which allegedly escalated to [RPVR] grabbing hold of [NP] by her shoulders.[100] On the police Incident Report NP freed herself and was crying and a member of public flagged down nearby police who assisted her.[101] NP told police she had been grabbed and feared further violence.[102] Police noted NP had no injuries and she did not want to pursue a criminal investigation and she just wanted to get out of the relationship with her belongings.[103] Police recorded that alcohol was the Main cause of their issues.[104]
8. RPVR denies grabbing NP by the shoulders but admits that they argued as he wanted her to leave and he placed her belongings outside his house. He accepts he was served a 2-year family violence restraining order on 22 November 2020,[105] and he accepts he became angry when the order was served because he was "sick of talking to police about this stuff" and "sick of trying to explain I never approached her husband or children".
9. There is no question RPVR and NP had an intimate personal relationship which meets the family member definition in s 4(1) of the Direction and the family relationship definition under the Restraining Orders Act. It is probable the incident on 25 October 2020 caused NP to be fearful and, to that degree, it crosses the threshold of 'family violence' for the purposes of the Direction.
10. With regard to the incident on 10 August 2023, police reported RPVR called police, alleging he and a female associate, BR, had been drinking and she had attacked him. On attendance, police reported finding the woman was in a state of severe intoxication mixed with shock and officers were able to ascertain [she] may have been assaulted by [RPVR] as they sighted moderate bruising on [her] left inner bicep and a swollen lip and they spoke to a witness who saw them having a verbal argument which escalated when [RPVR] grabbed [her] with both hands and pulled her towards him aggressively.[106] Police conveyed BR to her home address and reported she feels safe.[107] RPVR was arrested but ultimately released without charge. He was issued a 72-hour police order for the protection of BR.[108]
11. RPVR disagrees with this account. On his evidence, BR approached him in a highly intoxicated condition after separating from her husband. He staunchly maintains he was never in a romantic or intimate personal relationship with BR, although he resided in a room in her house from time to time when he was otherwise homeless. In this incident, he admits they consumed alcohol together. On RPVR's account, BR climbed into his tent against his wishes. He accepts they argued and alleges BR became agitated and attacked him, causing him injuries (which were noted by police), whereupon he twice called police for assistance. He disputes the witness evidence alluded to in the police incident report. RPVR denies he assaulted BR or caused moderate bruising on [BR's] inner left bicep and a swollen lip as recorded by police.[109]
12. I am not satisfied RPVR had an intimate personal relationship with BR within the meaning of the family member definition in s 4(1) of the Direction. The witness to his actions on 10 August 2023 alleges she left the caravan park and didn't think what she saw was out of the ordinary and only called police when she later returned to the caravan park and again saw RPVR and BR arguing.[110] There is no witness account of RPVR striking BR. On the police report, BR was distressed, but the cause of her distress is not expressly stated, although police reported she was in a state of severe intoxication at the time and she may have been assaulted by RPVR.[111] Even if such an alleged assault occurred (and I make no such finding), it would not amount to 'family violence' for the purposes of the Direction.
13. The Australian community has little tolerance for family violence, which is an abhorrent scourge. RPVR crossed a threshold in his interactions with NP. The family violence he engaged in was not frequent or on a trajectory of increasing seriousness. Even though it is viewed very seriously, and his conduct was odious, it is at the lower end of the spectrum of such conduct.
14. Throughout the hearing, RPVR denied he engaged in family or domestic violence against NP or anyone else. His denial runs counter to any expression of remorse for his actions and it demonstrates a lack of insight to the impact of his conduct on NP.
15. Considering these matters, I am satisfied the family violence consideration weighs against revoking the Visa cancellation decision.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Section 8.3 of the Direction requires consideration of the strength, nature and duration ofRPVR's ties to Australia, specifically:

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

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

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

   3. 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 Minister accepts RPVR's immediate family members, his parents, 2 brothers and his daughter have a right to reside in Australia indefinitely. I understand RPVR's mother is an Australian citizen. His father has applied for conferral of Australian citizenship, but this has not yet been determined. RPVR's twin brother, MC, has recently been granted Australian citizenship but has not yet undertake his citizenship ceremony. His younger brother is a permanent resident in Australia. And his daughter, was born in Australia and is an Australian citizen.
2. RPVR explained he has a number of extended family members who reside in Australia, including a niece (LC),[112] an aunt and an uncle with whom he is close, as well an uncle and cousins who reside in Victoria and Queensland with whom he has little contact.
3. I am satisfied a decision to affirm the cancellation of RPVR's Visa will have a substantial and adverse impact on his parents, his daughter and his niece, LC. His parents provided powerful evidence on this point in representations to the Minister:

He will not be able to see his darling daughter [EC] grow up or to see his Niece who adores him. We are getting old, and we will not be able to cope without him. I don't think we will be fully happy again if he is deported. We will not be in a financial position to visit him, and our age may also prevent us from ever seeing him. This will break our hearts and destroy our family unit.[113]

4. On GC's evidence, the family spends time on family holidays with RPVR, his daughter and niece.[114]
5. There is scant evidence of the impact a non-revocation decision on his daughter, should RPVR be removed from Australia. RPVR had full care of his daughter when he separated from her mother. He cared for her during the week and worked on weekends. In or about 2017, his mental health declined and he continued to care for EC, even though she spent more time with her mother. I accept RPVR maintains a close parental relationship with his daughter despite a reduction in their physical contact during the period he was homeless. One can readily comprehend the desire to shield her from the vagaries of his unstable life and limited resources during that period. RPVR has maintained contact with EC during the period of his incarceration and immigration detention.
6. Even despite the lack of direct evidence, it can be accepted enforced severance of the physical relationship between a father and teenage daughter who, hitherto, maintained a close relationship, would likely have a profound impact on the child. For EC, this would have occurred when RPVR was taken into custody in 2023 following a period of reduced physical contact from in or about 2021. The level of impact of temporary separation during a period of incarceration is likely to be less that the permanent physical separation which enforced removal from Australia would produce, subject only to EC visiting her father overseas. While the impact of this might be mitigated to some degree by frequent telephonic or digital communication, which would be possible should RPVR be removed from Australia to the United Kingdom, I accept the loss of physical contact and the comfort it affords would probably have a substantial negative impact on EC.
7. RPVR's twin brother resides and runs a business in Sydney. On RPVR's evidence they converse by telephone daily. This could be expected to continue should the Visa cancellation decision be affirmed, albeit subject to any difficulties stemming from the time difference between Australian and the United Kingdom. I draw a similar conclusion in respect of RPVR's younger brother, JC, although JC resides in closer proximity in Western Australia and he, too, would lose the opportunity for physical contact with his elder brother in the family gatherings RPVR referred to in his evidence.
8. RPVR has resided in Australia from 1981 when he was 6 years old, having departed from the United Kingdom at the age of 2. He spent the substantial majority of his formative years in Australia, attending school, participating in sporting activities in which he excelled. His first offences were traffic offences in 1996.
9. From a young age, RPVR contributed positively to the Australian community. As a child, he was a regional surfing champion.[115] He played basketball for a regional team, and was known as the 3-point champion.[116] He gave assistance to a neighbour who was in a wheelchair and being bullied, which led to him being violently assaulted which resulted in life-changing injuries.[117]
10. As an adult, RPVR has contributed positively to the Australian community over many years through employment. He worked as a brick paver, shop-fitter and in sales. He managed a ceramics business with 6 branches. On GC's evidence he engaged in charitable activities, donating annually to the Christmas appeal for disadvantaged children and the Cancer relay for life fund raising.[118] RPVR gave evidence of his volunteer activities with the Wembley Community Christian Church, where he resided in a storeroom for a time, and his activities coaching junior sport: teaching local children to surf. By his account, he rescued more than 10 people at Scarborough Beach.[119]
11. RPVR gave emotional evidence of his attachments to Australia, which he considers to be his home, and his identification of himself as Australian. GC's evidence is that RPVR has never had a passport. Since arriving in Australia, RPVR departed only once for a brief period when he was a child.
12. Overall, RPVR has very strong ties to Australia which weigh in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his Visa.

1. Section 8.4 of the Direction requires consideration of the best interests of each minor child affected by the decision and determination whether non-revocation under s 501CA of the Act is, or is not, in their best interests. Matters which must be considered are set out in

(4) In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant: > > a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact); > > b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements; > > c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child; > > d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways; > > e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; > > f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child); > > g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; > > h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

2. There is one minor child whose interests must be considered: RPVR's daughter, EC.
3. There is no direct evidence from EC.
4. RPVR has a parental role with EC. He has done so since her birth. For approximately 4 years, he provided full care for her as a sole parent after he and EC's mother separated. Thereafter, he continued to provide partial parental care. This was interrupted during the period of his mental instability, homelessness, incarceration and immigration detention. This notwithstanding, I accept his evidence his parental role and meaningful involvement with EC has persisted throughout and despite these difficulties. The close bond between RPVR and EC is supported by the evidence given by GC, JC, LC and LC's mother.[120]
5. EC is 17 years old. RPVR is likely to continue to play a positive parental role in EC's life until and after she turns 18. RPVR gave evidence (which is unsupported) that he was granted full custody of EC as a child and this remains in effect even though she has been living with her mother.
6. While there is no direct evidence of EC experiencing any negative effects from RPVR's past conduct, I readily accept, even though RPVR gave evidence of shielding her from the reality of his circumstances, it is likely she was adversely affected by the deterioration of his mental health, homelessness, offending and other serious conduct, incarceration and immigration detention. Should he be released in the community and engage in further dysregulated or offending conduct, EC might experience further adverse effects. There is no evidence EC experienced trauma as result of RPVR's past conduct or that she has been exposed to or subject to family violence perpetrated by RPVR.
7. The effect on EC of being separated from her father should he be removed from Australia is expressed by RPVR's parents, JC and LC. The right of a child to engage in a physical relationship with her father is a very weighty consideration. This is particularly important to a young person approaching adulthood who, on her mother's evidence, would experience further distress should her father be removed from Australia and who has already faced some significant challenges in her life thus far.[121]
8. I am satisfied non-revocation of the decision to cancel RPVR's Visa is not in the best interests of EC. This consideration weighs in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision.

1. The consideration of Australian community expectations must be approached in compliance with s 8.5 of the Direction, which states:

1. 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. 2. In addition, 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 is 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.

(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(4) 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. The Government's expression of Australian community expectations as a whole must be considered. There is no scope for the Tribunal to engage in an independent assessment to determine what the expectations of the Australian community might be in the particular case.[122]
2. This consideration and the deeming effect of s 8.3 is generally adverse to a non-citizen who has failed the character test and breached the expectation they will be law-abiding while in Australia. Nevertheless, the 'norm' expressed does not determine the weight to be given,[123] as it is the seriousness of the character concern, not the risk of harm, which is germane to the attribution of weight.[124] In order to evaluate the seriousness of the character concern arising from the adverse character assessment, including the existence of particular serious character concerns through conduct of the specified kinds, and the weight that should be given, the seriousness of the conduct must be considered.[125] This approach was recently confirmed by Moshinsky J in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v RXJT[126]:

61. Nevertheless, it is open to the decision-maker to consider the level of seriousness of the offending in the particular case, and then to assess the weight to be given to the consideration referred to in paragraph 8.5 (expectations of the Australian community) having regard to the level of seriousness of the offending. In FYBR, Stewart J said at [101]: > > Understood in this way, community expectations are simply, and informally, expressed as follows: "If you break the law that will be held against you, the more serious the breach the more it will be held against you, and it may even be decisive." This limited expression of "community expectations" by the Government is, one would expect, quite uncontroversial which is an attractive feature given the heterogeneity of views in this area. > > (Emphasis added.) > > 62. The emphasised words in the above passage make clear that it is open to a decision-maker to give more or less weight to this consideration depending on the level of seriousness of the offending. See also FYBR at [102]-[103]; DBWG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 3; 301 FCR 344 at [57].

3. RPVR engaged in an act of family violence which I have already discussed. This is within the particular kinds of conduct specified in s 8.5(2) of the Direction. It raises the expectation that his Visa should be cancelled. When the facts of the act he engaged in are considered, as I have said, his conduct is at the lower end of the spectrum of such behaviour. This reduces the weight of the character concern somewhat.
4. The expectation is raised in respect of other serious conduct RPVR engaged in, including the serious assaults he committed. This is especially so when his violent acts against women are considered. The seriousness of RPVR's offending conduct is not reduced by his mental illness or his mental state, or state of intoxication at the time.
5. RPVR asserts the expectations of the Australian community should take account of his mental illness and the length of his residence in Australia since childhood. These are matters which can be taken into account when weighing the primary and other relevant considerations.
6. I am satisfied the primary consideration of Australian community expectations weighs against revoking of the decision to cancel RPVR's Visa.

1. 'Other considerations' are generally to be given less weight than 'primary considerations'. These include:

(a) legal consequences of the decision; > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed; and > > (c) the impact on Australian business interests.

1. Consideration of the 'legal consequences of the decision' should be approached in human terms.[127] In this context, regard should be had to the practical reality for the person within the legal framework prescribed by the Parliament.
2. Section 9.1(1) is relevant:

(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 non-citizen.

1. No refoulement claims arise in RPVR's case.
2. The legal consequences of affirming the non-revocation decision include that, without a visa authorising his presence, RPVR will be an unlawful non-citizen in Australia who is liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under the terms of s 198 of the Act. By operation of s 189, he will be subject to detention in immigration detention until he is removed. He will not be permitted to apply for any other visa than a protection visa. Once he is removed, it is probable he would not be able to return. In order to do so, he would need to satisfy the Special Return Criteria in s 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which is unlikely.
3. In order to be removed from Australia to the United Kingdom, RPVR will require a travel document on which to enter the United Kingdom, such as a passport. On the evidence of GC, RPVR has never been issued a passport. Consequently, in order to be removed, the issue of relevant travel documents will need to be addressed. The length of time required to successfully fulfill the documentary requirements for issue of a United Kingdom passport is not presently known. There is no material before the Tribunal addressing this point.
4. As the Minister pointed out, should the time required exceed a reasonable period, it is conceivable RPVR might be issued with a bridging visa under which he could be released into the Australian community, subject to conditions and pending removal. This is speculative.
5. The upshot of this for RPVR is that he will be held in immigration detention while these processes are undertaken. The length of time before RPVR could expect to be held in immigration detention prior to being removed from Australia, or perhaps being issued with another visa pending such removal, is uncertain.
6. RPVR described his continuing detention as a cruel torture or punishment in which he experiences difficulties obtaining appropriate medications in a timely manner to manage his mental illness. He gave powerful evidence of his present difficulties and his deteriorating mental condition. Records of him failing to attend 6 appointments booked for the administration of medications do not negate the difficulties he explained obtaining Alprazolam or the nature and extent of the mental symptoms he experiences. In this context, the legal consequence of a non-revocation decision would, in practical terms, extend the duration of his detention for an uncertain period.
7. While the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision under the legislative scheme might be onerous, at least to the extent RPVR's liberty and freedom is curtailed for the lawful purposes of removing him from Australia, the particular circumstances of RPVR's poor mental health and related difficulties colour the practical effect in human terms of such a decision.
8. I am satisfied, in the particular circumstances, the uncertain duration of his continuing detention consequent to a non-revocation decision weighs against such a decision being made.

1. Consideration of any impediments RPVR would face if he is removed from Australian to the United Kingdom. Section 9.2 states:

(1) Decision-makers must consider 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 substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

2. RPVR asserts removal to the United Kingdom would be a death sentence for him. He contends he will face substantial impediments obtaining housing and appropriate mental health treatment in a country where he has no support network, no connections and no hope of building a life, separated from his family. As I comprehend his submissions, he would struggle to navigate systems and processes to obtain housing, income support and appropriate psychiatric treatment, and this would be exacerbated by the symptoms of his mental illness, particularly deep depressive symptoms which would place his life at risk.
3. On this point, the Minister accepts there would be a period of transition for RPVR which he might find difficult. The Minister contends RPVR would be able to access support as a returning citizen. The Minster asserts the welfare and medical systems and services in the United Kingdom, including psychiatric services, are comparable to those in Australia. In the Minister's submission, relying on Webb v Minister for Home Affairs,[128] this can be accepted as a matter of common knowledge. The Minister argues RPVR would be entitled to access welfare and medical support services like any other United Kingdom citizen and, furthermore, his parents could be expected to continue to support him financially to obtain private psychiatric treatment as they intend to do should he be released into the community in Australia.
4. There are some difficulties with these submissions. Following Webb's case, if the state of the health and welfare systems in the United Kingdom is a matter of assumed common knowledge and that assumed knowledge is sufficient to support a finding that the standards and availability of those systems are broadly similar to comparable systems in Australia, the lack of particularity and the absence of material addressing the point is problematic in the specific circumstances of RPVR's case and the representations he has made.
5. The probative value of common knowledge in any case turns on the quality of the knowledge assumed in respect of particular relevant factual matters. As Anastassiou J observed in Webb's case, the veracity of the common knowledge is a relevant consideration, as is the gravity of the consequences and the veracity of the representations made.[129]
6. Thus, while it might be accepted on the basis of assumed common knowledge that RPVR might be able, like any other United Kingdom citizen, to avail himself of health and welfare systems in the United Kingdom which are of a standard comparable to those in Australia, this does not sufficiently address the particularity of his representations. There is a particularly sharp point to consider. The psychiatric evidence clearly describes the functional and other effects of RPVR's mental illness and his history of attempted self-harm. By inference at least, it is probable the adverse effects of his mental illness on his cognitive and functional capacity will reduce his ability to navigate the welfare and health systems in the United Kingdom, of which he has no apparent knowledge. By further inference, as he starkly alleged in his submissions to the Tribunal, separation from his family and the health services he understands, including doctors who have treated him for some time, is likely to have an adverse effect on his mental health with potentially dire consequences.
7. Even accepting the proposition RPVR's parents could be expected to provide RPVR with financial assistance and other support, it does not follow that RPVR would be able to access private psychiatric treatment in the United Kingdom, as he has done with their assistance in Australia. As GC and RPVR explained, his parents paid for private health insurance which covered his private psychiatric treatment. There is no evidence in respect of the costs of private psychiatric treatment and related private health insurance in the United Kingdom, and whether RPVR's parents could cover such costs. RPVR alleged that his parents are on the cusp of retiring and his father has recently undertaken treatment for prostate cancer. In his submission, even if they could cover the costs, any new private health cover would likely be subject to extensive waiting periods as he has an existing illness.
8. This underscores the difficulty of proceeding on the basis of assumed common knowledge. It is no answer to assert that RPVR has not put on relevant materials. RPVR is not a lawyer and he has no legal representation. He has a mental illness which impairs his cognitive and functional capacity. Since 2024, he has been incarcerated and held in immigration detention where, by his account, he has limited access to resources and difficulties with electronic and hard copy communications.
9. Nevertheless, without relevant materials of probative value addressing the particular point of plausible representations he has made, I am unable to make sufficient factual findings on the basis of assumed common knowledge.
10. Considering these matters, I am satisfied RPVR is likely to experience substantial impediments establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards should he be removed from Australia to the United Kingdom. He is 50 years old and unable to work because of the effects of his mental illness. Even though he is unlikely to encounter any cultural or language barriers, and the availability and standard of health and welfare systems in the United Kingdom are comparable to similar system in Australia, the impairments he experiences as a result of his mental illness are likely to impede his adaption to life in the United Kingdom.
11. I am satisfied these considerations weigh against affirming the Visa cancellation decision.

1. I am satisfied no adverse impact on Australian business interests arise in this case. RPVR has been unable to work since 2017. The materials before the Tribunal do not raise any such issue.
2. Consequently, this consideration does not weigh for or against revocation of the Visa cancellation decision.

1. The evaluative task of weighing and balancing the relevant considerations and the path of reasoning required is well established.[130]
2. Generally, the protection of the Australian community is to be given more weight than other considerations, and primary considerations are to be given more weight that other considerations. I have approached the evaluative task in this manner.
3. The protection consideration weighs very heavily in the balance. The nature and seriousness of RPVR's conduct and the risk of harm to the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation. To this, the family violence consideration and the expectations of the Australian community add weight. RPVR has breached the expectation that, as a non-citizen, he would obey Australian laws. He has engaged in very serious conduct and he has caused harm to individuals, victims of his crimes, and the Australian community. There is a medium to high risk he would engage in further serious conduct should he be released into the Australian community. This is underscored by his lack of rehabilitation and his lack of insight.
4. Against this, the length of his residence in Australia and the strength and extent of his ties to Australia are a very substantial counterweight. Under the principle in s 5.2(6), greater tolerance of RPVR's criminal and other serious conduct can be afforded. RPVR has spent almost all of his life, including the majority of his formative years, in Australia. From childhood, he has contributed positively to the Australian community. He was violently assaulted and sustained life-changing injuries when attempting to protect a disabled neighbour. All of his family members are permanently residing in Australia. His daughter and his mother are Australian citizens. His twin brother has recently been granted Australian citizenship. RPVR considers himself to be Australian and in many regards, culturally and experientially, but not legally or in terms of his immigration status, this can readily be understood.
5. The best interests of his minor daughter are not served by non-revocation, and this adds substantially to the counterweight. The right of a daughter to experience physical contact with her father, who played a strong parental role in her upbringing and with whom she has a close relationship, is a very weighty consideration, albeit that the daughter is approaching adulthood.
6. The legal consequences of a non-revocation decision, specifically the uncertain duration of RPVR's continuing detention prior to removal from Australia, adds some weight in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision, but only slightly.
7. The likely impediments RPVR would face if he is removed to the United Kingdom are substantial in the context of his mental illness. This adds weight against non-revocation.
8. Overall, weighing and balancing these considerations, I am satisfied the considerations weighing in favour of revoking the decision to cancel RPVR's Visa outweigh those weighing for non-revocation. This is so even giving the protection consideration greater weight than other primary considerations.
9. The strength, nature and duration of RPVR's ties to Australia are very weighty and, when coupled with RPVR's daughter best interests and the impediments he is likely to face as a result of his mental illness if he is removed to the United Kingdom, this is decisive. I do not consider that the tolerance of the Australian community is exceeded in the circumstances of his case, even though the expectations consideration weighs against revocation.
10. In conclusion, for the purposes of s 501CA(b)(ii) of the Act, even though RPVR does not pass the character test, I am satisfied there is another reason to revoke the decision to cancel his Visa.
11. From this it follows the decision of the Minister's delegate on 19 November 2025 must be set aside and the decision to cancel RPVR's Visa is revoked.

1. The 19 November 2025 decision of the Minister's delegate is set aside and in substitution, under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal decides to revoke the decision to cancel RPVR's Class BF transitional (permanent) visa.

Special Counsel for Respondent: Elle Tattersall, Minter Ellison

Solicitor for Respondent: Jonathan Djasmeini, Minter Ellison

[18] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 14, [107].

[22] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202, [68].

[24] Maxwell v R [1996] HCA 46, Dawson and McHugh JJ at [19]-[20].

[25] Mao v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 153, [[87]-[94], citing Maxwell and HZCP.

[76] Ibid, 77, 170,178, 180, 197,201, 202 and 205 refer.

[78] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673 (Tanielu), [97] citing Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSCA 213, [130].

[79] Exhibit 1, 77 and 259, for example.

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

[123] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, per Charlesworth J at [75] and Stewart at [89].

[124] Plaintiff S22-2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 36, per Gageler CJ, Edelman and Jagot JJ, [26].

[125] FYBR, per Stewart J at [102].

[126] [2026] FCA 33.

[127] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38, [9].

[128] [2020] FCA 831.

[130] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [35].