1. On 5 April 2022 the applicant was held not responsible due to a mental health impairment of Cause wounding/grievous bodily harm to person with intent to murder and Attempt to strangle with intent to murder. The District Court ordered that the applicant be detained in a correctional facility, or at such place as may be determined from time to time by MHRT until released. Following a recommendation of his treating team and following a hearing by the Mental Health Review Tribunal the applicant was released into the community on 22 May 2025 and is subject to six monthly reviews.
2. The circumstances of the offending are set out in the sentencing remarks of her Honour Judge Flannery of the District Court. The transcript reflects that the applicant's offending occurred in circumstances where he had not been compliant with medication requirements for his diagnosed mental health condition, schizophrenia, prior to his offending on 9 August 2020, and that he was 'acutely psychotic' at the time of the offending. He experienced various delusions, including that:

(a) his wife was having an affair with his neighbour (the victim of the offending); > > (b) the applicant's wife and the victim were involved in a conspiracy to kill the applicant with a gun; and > > (c) the applicant had received a command from God to 'kill his neighbour'.

3. The sentencing remarks reflect that the circumstances of the offending was that the applicant fired a weapon at the victim, and the applicant told the victim that he was going to kill him. The victim ran away and the applicant chased him, and used a weapon to strangle the victim. The victim was taken to hospital and was found to have a 10cm laceration to his cheek which extended into the subcutaneous space, a puncture wound to his left scapula, a laceration to his left deltoid and a penetrating wound to his left forearm, with fracture.
4. The applicant was also charged with two summary offences arising in May 2020, three months before the index offending: Custody of knife in a public place'; and Enter building/land with intent to commit indictable offence'. On 10 May 2020, he was charged with enter building with intent to commit indictable offence and having custody of a knife in a public place. On 15 May 2020 and 19 June 2020 and 26 June 2020 he was charged with possess prohibited drug (cannabis). On 25 June 2020 he was charged with stalk/intimidate intend cause fear of physical harm and common assault. He was placed on bail and an Apprehended Violence Order was put in place to protect his father and stepmother. This occurred after the applicant was upset by his father reporting a decline in his mental state to his case manager. He shouted at his father, pushed him and threatened his stepmother. All offences occurred whilst the applicant was in the grip of psychosis. He appeared in the Burwood Local Court on 29 March 2021 and in April 2021 and those matters were also dealt with under the provisions of section 32(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, 1990 (NSW), the applicant being ordered into the care of Justice Health at the MRRC, Silverwater.

1. Section 501(2) of the Act enables the Minister to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the person does not satisfy the Minister that he or she passes the character test.
2. On 3 January 2025, a delegate of the Minister issued the applicant with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of his visa.
3. On 15 May 2025 and 13 June 2025 the applicant made representations in response to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of his visa.
4. On 8 September 2025 a delegate of the Minister decided to exercise the discretion under s 501(2) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa.
5. On 15 September 2025, the applicant was notified of the delegate's decision. He was not taken into immigration detention but remains in the community as a forensic patient and is subject to a mandatory review by the MHRT every six months: s 78(d) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (MHCIFP Act).
6. On 19 September 2025, the applicant sought review of the cancellation decision in the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to cancel a visa under s 501(2), where the application for review is lodged within nine days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B). In this case, the application for review of that decision was made on 19 September 2025, within nine days after the decision was notified within the statutory time limit provided by s 500(6B) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to make a decision within 84 days of the day after the applicant was notified of the decision or it will be taken to be affirmed. The '84th day' in this application falls on 8 December 2025.

1. In deciding in relation to the application, the Tribunal has considered:

(a) The applicant's bundle of documents and supplementary bundle of documents > > (b) Letter of Instruction to Dr Richard Furst 17 October 2025 > > (c) Recidivism Report of Dr Furst 19 November 2025 > > (d) Report of Dr Chengzhang dated 24 March 2025 > > (e) Support Letter of Danielle Nedelkovska > > (f) The applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions ('SFIC') and submissions in reply filed on 29 October and 25 November 2025 > > (g) The respondent's SFIC filed on 10 November 2025 > > (h) Applicant's Conditional Release Order from the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 22 May 2025; > > (i) Supplementary statement from the applicant dated 13 May 2025; > > (j) Supplementary statement from the applicant's wife dated 8 May 2025; > > (k) Letter of support from Mr Adam Terry, senior social worker and applicant's case manager with the Bankstown Community Mental Health Service, dated 27 October 2025; > > (l) Further letter of support from the applicant's employer Mr RGX dated 24 October 2025; > > (m) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Lebanon Country Information dated 26 June 2023 > > (n) Statement of applicant, dated 13 May 2025 > > (o) Support Letter from applicant's wife, REX dated 8 May 2025 > > (p) Support Letter from applicant's daughter RAX, dated 8 May 2025 > > (q) Support Letter from applicant's son MAX, dated 8 May 2025 > > (r) Support Letter from applicant's employer RGX, dated 10 April 2025 > > (s) Letter of Dr Chengzhang Li from Concord Hospital, dated 24 March 2025 > > (t) Letter of Social Worker Sarah Heenan from Concord Hospital, dated 8 May 2025 > > (u) Letter from Tax Agent, dated 2 July 2019 > > (v) Marriage Certificate > > (w) Children's Birth Certificates > > (x) The oral evidence given by the applicant and his witnesses; and > > (y) The closing oral submissions made on behalf of the parties

2. The applicant's witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing were:
   • His employer, RGX
   • His wife, RX.
3. Relevant parts of the oral evidence and submissions are considered below.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case, s 501(2) of the Act provides that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
2. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that a person passes the character test, it must then consider whether the discretion to cancel should be exercised. In exercising the discretion, the Tribunal must have regard to the considerations set out in Direction No. 110, visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) which commenced on 21 June 2024.
3. Direction 110 contains guidance for decision-makers and specifies principles that govern the task of deciding whether to cancel a visa under s 501(2).
4. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1).
5. In this case, "Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA" (the Direction) applies.
6. For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of a visa, 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision-maker's application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision.
7. These principles are:

(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 noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction.
2. Section 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight should be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Section 7.2 of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight over 'other' considerations.
3. The primary considerations are set out in section 8 of the Direction:

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

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

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

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

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in section 9 of the Direction. These are:

1. FHHM v Minister for Immigration[2] considered [8.4] of Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O'Callaghan and Colvin JJ, Derrington J agreeing, referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration,[3] stating at [34] that "particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations".

1. In relation to the character test, the issue is whether the applicant passes the character test pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Act.
2. In circumstances where the applicant was acquitted of an offence on the grounds of mental health impairment, the applicant meets the criteria of s501(7)(e) of the Migration Act as he has been acquitted on the grounds of unsoundness of mind. Accordingly the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s501(7)(c) and does not pass the character test under s501(6)(a).
3. The applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test and the Tribunal makes a finding that the applicant does not pass the character test.
4. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised, taking into account relevant considerations in the Direction.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1**

1. In accordance with 8.1(1) of the Direction, in considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal has had regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. The Tribunal has also considered that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. As required by 8.1(2) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct - 8.1.1

1. The Tribunal has considered the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending set out above at [6] to [8].
2. In addition, the offending gave rise to two ADVOs against the applicant, for the protection of his father, and his father's partner, both for a period of 5 years, expiring in 2026. The ADVO will be addressed further below under the heading family violence.
3. A final ADVO protecting the victim of the index offence ceased on 25 May 2024.
4. A final ADVO protecting the applicant's wife, and their four children ceased on 19 August 2022.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant has engaged in very serious conduct, that if repeated, would pose a risk to the Australian community. However, the offending must be assessed in the context of the circumstances that led to the index offending. The Tribunal is required by paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110 to engage in the evaluation of the likelihood of the applicant engaging in similar conduct in the future by reference to the applicant's specific circumstances. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that due to the fact that the applicant is now in remission and because of the stringent conditions imposed by the Community Treatment Order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the risk to the Australian community is assessed as "low".

1. It is necessary to set out the applicant's forensic history in full. Before the index offending the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and suffered multiple psychotic episodes. When psychotic in the past the applicant experienced delusions including grandiose, religious, persecutory and delusions of infidelity, auditory hallucinations, including hearing messages from God, and thought disorder. The onset of his schizophrenia is thought to have occurred around the age of 35 and may have been brought on the use of cannabis, although the applicant described very minimal use of cannabis. Between 2019 and 2020 he suffered a functional decline, and was linked in with the community mental health service and was prescribed antipsychotic mediation (aripiprazole) in the period before the index offending. He struggled with side effects of this particular antipsychotic medication, including weight gain, and as a result of the applicant became non-compliant and only took his medication intermittently. There were reported missed opportunities by the local health service to admit and assertively treat the applicant's psychotic illness with the applicant having presented to hospital three times in the four months prior to the index offending, with religious themes in his thought content and concerns about non-compliance with medication, and not being admitted each time. The increase in frequency of cannabis use in early 2020 also likely contributed to worsening psychotic symptoms.[4]
2. There were consistent reports by his medical treatment team that he was non-compliant with his medication in February and March of 2020[5] and his admission record to Banks House reported:

Commenced on paliperidone injections, which he didnt like because of side-effects (sexual side-effects and sedation). Says he was discharged on tablets which he stopped taking after 3 months because of side-effects. Was fine until he started smoking THC 3 weeks ago.[6]

3. Upon assessment of the historical medical reports, it is the opinion of the expert forensic psychiatrist that the applicant's treatment prior to the index offending was such that the applicant was not adequately treated at the time and that it should have been clear that the applicant had not taken any medication.[7] The applicant had not concealed the fact that he had consistently refused to take depot injections after his negative experience with Paliperidone and it is not clear why applicant was not detained in a mental health facility by the Bankstown-Lidcombe treating team where he presented frequently and was diagnosed with 'Acute exacerbation of chronic schizoaffective schizophrenia' in February of 2020,[8] six months before the index offending.

1. From August 2020 until December 2022, the applicant was an inpatient at the Mental Health Screening Unit at Silverwater Correctional Centre. He was subsequently detained at Kestrel Unit, a medium-secure forensic unit at Morisset Hospital from December 2022 until September 2023. During that time he reported that he commenced Zyprexa depot injections (Olanzapine) and realised that these kept him stable without side effects, such as weight gain.[9] He was reported to have made good progress at Morisset Hospital, being free of psychotic symptoms and displaying responsible behaviour. He was granted leave to visit his family and abided by all leave and supervision restrictions.
2. The applicant was then transferred to Concord Hospital's Broughton (Forensic) Unit on 11 September 2023, being placed under the care of Dr Fiona McGregor, Forensic Psychiatrist. The transfer to Concord occurred so that he could be closer to his family and be granted further extended leave to stay overnight, up to six nights per week. He is reported to have engaged well with his treating team, continued to be compliant with his medication given as a monthly depot injection and also participated in the various psychosocial interventions and treatment programs offered on the unit.[10]
3. The applicant's treating psychiatrist, Dr Li, in his report of 24 March 2025, noted the applicant had consistently tested negative for any illicit substance use on random urine drug screening during his admission to the unit over the preceding 18 months. His behaviour was of no concern to staff. The applicant was socialising courteously and appropriately with other patients and staff on the unit throughout his admission. He was assessed as being open and receptive to advice from his treating team.
4. Dr Li confirmed the applicant had been in remission of psychotic symptoms during his admission to Concord Hospital (and over the preceding 2 years 2023 to 2025) and had progressed to the point that he established himself in new accommodation obtained through social housing (in Revesby), was able to work casually in bricklaying during periods of leave from the unit, and was spending 6 nights each week on overnight leave by the beginning of 2025, split between staying with his family and in his own accommodation, without any issues, problems or concerns. His leave was implemented in the latter months of 2023. Dr Li monitored the likelihood of reoffending closely and considered the risk to be so low that by 23 September 2023 Dr Li considered that the applicant continued to be in remission[11] and was eligible for conditional release. It is noted that as early as September 2023 the Deputy President of the MHRT was satisfied that the safety of the applicant or any other member of the public would not be seriously endangered and granted unsupervised day leave. The applicant continued to comply with all conditions and remained symptom free.
5. The applicant was granted weekend overnight leave by the beginning of 2024. His leave was increased in a step-wise manner, giving him increased independence throughout the course of his 20-month admission to the Broughton Unit (an open mental health ward at Concord Hospital).
6. The applicant's treating team were of the view that he was sufficiently stable to spend lengthy periods in the community unescorted. His sustained positive progress throughout his admission to the Broughton Unit, including ongoing remission from symptoms, as well as the related reduction in his risks, prompted his treating team to apply for the applicant to be conditionally released from the inpatient unit, with a plan for close follow-up with the Bankstown Community Mental Health Team.
7. When assessing whether the applicant presented a risk to the community, if released into the community on a part time basis, the Mental Health Review Tribunal again assessed the applicant positively in August 2024. The applicant had improved with regular antipsychotic treatment, and there were no obvious positive negative or cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. He spent as many as six nights per week in the matrimonial home without incident. His clinical risk for violence is assessed as low.[12]
8. The applicant continued under a regime of unsupervised day leave until May 2025 when he was released into the community. The applicant was reviewed by the MHRT on 15 February 2024 and 11 March 2024. On each occasion the applicant was found to have responded well to treatment. His positive progress was noted at Morisset and at Concord. The applicant was found to have re-engaged with his family and has also engaged in part time employment in 2024, reading plans and chalking outlines for bricklaying, which his employer considered to be important foreman work.[13] In March 2024 the MHRT was satisfied that an order for six nights a week unsupervised leave to the family home would not seriously endanger either the applicant or any member of the community and accordingly made the order as requested by the treating team.
9. Finally, the treating team at Concord Hospital made an application for conditional release to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). That application was heard by the MHRT on 21 May 2025. In making the decision to grant the applicant conditional release, the MHRT considered up to date documents and reports prepared by the applicant's treating team. The determination to grant conditional release was supported by evidence from medical professionals working closely with the applicant in the community. The applicant was discharged from Concord Hospital on a Conditional Release Order (CRO) dated 22 May 2025.
10. Finally, on 22 May 2025, in determining whether the applicant should be granted conditional release the MHRT decided, following evidence given at a hearing on 21 May 25, that the safety of the public will not be seriously endangered by the applicant's release into the community as a forensic patient as defined under s72(1) of the MHCIFP Act. As a forensic patient, the applicant remains subject to mandatory review by the MHRT every 6 months.
11. The stringent conditions imposed on the applicant include meeting with his case manager and treating psychiatrist, participation in various programs including education, training, rehabilitation, recreational or therapeutic, he must accept and take medication or other treatment as prescribed by his treating psychiatrist, and immediately attend and seek admission to a mental health facility as a voluntary patient if his treating psychiatrist has concerns regarding his mental health. Other conditions imposed on the applicant include, but are not limited to, the non-consumption of alcohol, illegal drugs or substances, and he must also not engage in conduct that would endanger his own safety or any member of the public.

What is the likelihood of the applicant re offending?

1. The forensic psychiatrist Dr Furst opines that the applicant's offending occurred during a concentrated period when he was suffering from untreated mental health conditions. Dr Furst reports that the progress made by him while under the order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT), his compliance to his medication, and his willingness to maintain his treatment in the community, substantially reduces any risk of reoffending. The expert further states that the applicant's risk of reoffending is well managed in that there are many protective mechanisms in place to monitor his progress and compliance to his treatment and medication.
2. Dr Furst opined:

No current dynamic risk factors were identified in relation to [the applicant], as he has been mentally stable and compliant with all recommendations/treatment offered by his treating teams at the MRRC, Morisset Hospital and at Concord Hospital; has adequate social support; has stable accommodation; and has been working as a bricklayer again on a casual basis [end of 2024 and start of 2025]. He does not have a personality disorder and does not hold any antisocial values. > > There are protective factors in this case that have also been recognised in the literature as being protective against future violence and criminal offending. Specifically, he presented as hard-working, caring towards his family and socially responsible. He also has a positive attitude towards future treatment requirements, suggesting he will continue to engage in treatment/rehabilitation and will benefit from same. > > Overall, the analysis of [the applicant's] clinical, static and dynamic risk factors and consideration of his protective factors suggests that the applicant is at significantly lower risk than the average offender coming before the Courts of re-offending. It is also apparent that neither [the applicant] nor any member of the community, would be seriously endangered by his ongoing conditional release.[14]

3. The expert was specifically cross-examined about his assessment above, stating that the applicant is "at significantly lower risk than the average offender coming before Courts or re-offending." When pressed to assess the applicant using the common risk assessment tool HCR-20, and factoring in historical risk factors, the expert assessed the applicant's risk of re-offending as a 6 out of 40, which is considered low. The expert concluded that "as the applicant currently displays no clinical symptoms, his score is zero". When asked how the applicant may be affected by potential future stress factors, such as his wife re-partnering, the expert opined that the couple separated in 2020, and that he coped well with these relationship stressors and that a marital separation may be considered a normal stressor and would not alter the expert's opinion as to risk. The expert opined that the applicant's insight into the separation was adequate. Factoring in reduced protective factors such as his wife re-partnering and the ongoing stressor of visa uncertainty, he assessed the applicant's risk of reoffending as 8 out of 40 which remains in the low risk range on the HCR-20 scale.
4. When summarising his opinion the expert stated that the average offender has 40% risk of reoffending, but that persons who are forensic patients under treatment orders such as the applicant, tend to re-offend less:

Re-offending rates for forensic patients in NSW are very low compared to mainstream inmates, at approximately 6.3% within 12 months of release. Rates of violent re-offending are significantly lower than that and are much lower than the rates of general re-offending and violent re-offending seen in people released from the general jail population, including inmates with mental illness and/or drug addiction without a forensic order, which is in the order of 40% within 5 years of release from custody. Mainstream prisoners also tend to return to prison sooner [compared to forensic patients] and for longer periods when they re-offend. > > A study published by Hayes et al (2014) examined/reviewed the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) files for all patients who received a not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI) verdict between January 1990 and December 2010, and who were released into the community during that period. The outcome measures of conditional release revocation and psychiatric hospital readmission were extracted from these files. Information about subsequent criminal charges, convictions and penalties were obtained from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research's reoffending database. > > During the 21-year period studied, 364 offenders received an NGMI verdict and were placed under the supervision of the Tribunal. Of those individuals, 197 were released into the community, including 85 who were granted unconditional release. Over a follow-up period averaging 8.4 years, 18% of conditionally released patients reoffended, 11.8% were convicted of a further offence, 8.7% were charged with a violent offence, 3.1% were convicted of a violent offence and 3.7% were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Five (3.1%) conditionally released forensic patients received a further NGMI verdict. found (sic) forensic patients have very low rates of violent re-offending following release. > > Only 25% of conditionally released patients had their conditional release revoked during the study period, whereas 50% were readmitted to hospital, a finding supportive of the utility of conditional release as a 'safety net' to ensure adequate treatment. > > The authors concluded that the treatment and rehabilitation of forensic patients in NSW, together with the decision-making procedures of the MHRT, has been effective in protecting the community from further offending by forensic patients.

5. The expert summarised his position during cross-examination: while there is a 50% chance that the applicant may become symptomatic again in future, given his history of episodes to date, there is a less than 2% chance, even in the event of a relapse, that the applicant will violently re-offend because of the supportive nature of the treatment order and the other protective factors peculiar to the applicant, in particular his sustained family support. In addition the applicant will receive ongoing counselling sessions from a private counsellor to assist with his mental health and wellbeing in the community.[15]
6. In summary, the expert concluded that the risk of violent re-offending is extremely low at below 2%.

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, the Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. In this regard, the Tribunal has had particular regard to 8.1.2(1), which states that "[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable".
2. The applicant's position is that the risk of re-offending is low and according to Dr Furst, as low as below 2%. In relation to this, the applicant's legal representative submitted that the applicant is remorseful,[16] that his primary offending occurred at a time when he was acutely psychotic and under a treatment regime that was inadequate for his needs. He has not offended again for five years, while on unsupervised leave for a period of several years. The evidence is that he was wrongly treated at the time, and that this led to sustained psychosis and delusions culminating in the offending.
3. During oral evidence the applicant continued to show remorse and stated that he felt very sorry for the victim, and that at the time he suffered from delusions that the neighbour was sexually assaulting his children. He is now in remission and has not shown any signs of delusionary symptoms since anti-psychotic treatment commenced five years ago.
4. In respect of the applicant's risk of re-offending, the Tribunal has considered the applicant's evidence and the psychological evidence contained in the Joint Tender Bundle (JTB).[17]
5. In relation to this issue, the Tribunal has considered:
   • Applicant's statutory declaration dated 15 May 2025
   • Applicant's material tendered and marked exhibit A
   • Applicant's written submission dated 19 November 2025
   • Applicant's psychological assessment by Dr Furst, 19 November 2025,
   • Statement from the applicant's wife
   • Letter of support from the applicant's social worker
   • Letter of support from the applicant's employer;
   • Letter of support from the applicant's counsellor, clinical psychological registrar
   • Employment and qualifications information;
   • The oral evidence given by the applicant, his wife and his employer at the hearing.
6. The applicant gave evidence in a frank and forthright manner about his offending. The Tribunal considers that the applicant was not minimising his behaviour and showed considerable insight into his illness, the need for this treatment regime and his willingness to comply with any order imposed by the MHRT and the Community Treatment order (CTO). Particularly compelling was the applicant's evidence that he has found a balance in the medication and that Olanzepine "is his drug" and that he wished that he had received depot injections earlier in life as this kept him stable.
7. Relevantly to the issue of the applicant's chance of re-offending, it is the applicant's submission that forensic patients who remain under treatment orders indefinitely are reviewed every six month, ensuring that their progress is continuing and that they are medication adherent and symptom free. In the event of any emergence of symptoms the order prescribes attendance at a mental health treatment facility. The Tribunal received evidence from Mr A Terry, the applicant's senior mental health care practitioner and social worker. Mr Terry has visited the applicant in his home, and ensures that the applicant adheres to depot injections at Liverpool Hospital. It is Mr Terry who ensures that the statutory safeguards of the CTO are maintained and that the treatment regime is adhered to. He stated that the system is such that if the applicant misses a treatment, police may be notified and if necessary the applicant will be detained. When asked how swiftly someone may be detained after non-attendance to a depot injection, Mr Terry answered that he has not had to report a forensic patient for non-compliance, but it is his expectation that 24 to 48 hours would be an expected response time.
8. In respect of his offending the psychological reports of Drs Li, and Furst stated that the applicant has accessed the community unsupervised for a lengthy period of time since 2023 without any incident of concern and that the pattern of community and family engagement continued since his conditional release in May of 2025.
9. During cross-examination Dr Furst impressed upon the Tribunal that the risk of violent offending, even if in the event of a recurrence of psychotic symptoms is extremely low, "less than 2%".
10. It is the respondent's submission that there are incidents of family violence that are relevant to the risk assessment and should be taken into account. It was submitted that the existence of several ADVO's is evidence that the applicant committed acts of family violence, and that these add to the risks to the Australian community, should the applicant offend again. Regarding the applicant's various offences alleged against his family, the applicant stated that he did not offend against his father, even when psychotic, and that whilst a scuffle ensued, the scuffle caused both the applicant and his father to lose balance and fall. The applicant stated that it was his father who assaulted him with a cane, but he did not assault his father. After cross-examination of the applicant, and considering the police event report tendered by the respondent,[18] the Tribunal concludes that as the event descriptions differ and the applicant does not have a clear recollection of the events as he was psychotic, and without further evidence from his father or his father's partner, this evidence should be accorded limited weight in assessing future or current risks. The respondent conceded that on the evidence before the Tribunal there can be no finding that the applicant perpetrated acts of family violence that should be taken in to account in the risk assessment.

Conclusion in relation to protection of the Australian community

1. The Tribunal has had regard to 8.1.2(1), which states that '[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable'. It is not in dispute that the sexual offending perpetrated by the applicant is very serious. There is no doubt that should the applicant again engage in conduct similar to the index or primary offence, the resulting harm to an individual and more broadly to the Australian community through that individual's family, friends and associates would be very serious as is considered by the Direction.
2. In relation to the risk of the applicant re-offending, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant feels genuine remorse and has a level of insight as to the lifelong effects that this offending has had on his victim and he hopes that the victim will be able to forgive him one day.[19] He is intent on not re-offending by which he means that he intent on complying with his medication because he understands both the medical effects of becoming psychotic and that he will be detained should he not attend his monthly depot injections. He explained that the fear of ongoing detention greatly motivates him to continue his regular depot injections and assessments by the mental health team. The Tribunal accepts that at the time of his offending he was psychotic and that he has not suffered from psychosis in the five years since he commenced treatment. There is no evidence to suggest he continues to suffer from a cannabis abuse disorder or that he has any intention of using drugs or alcohol as it interferes with his medication. The Tribunal accepts that although the CTO stipulates that drug testing be caried out every six weeks, the applicant's social worker Mr Terry opined that the applicant has such a low risk of using drugs or alcohol that only one test has been carried out since his release in May.
3. The applicant states, and the Tribunal accepts, that his continued relationship with his wife (although each refer to being separated) and four children and the prospect of employment are such that the applicant is highly motivated to be a supportive husband, father and employee. He is highly motivated to comply with the community treatment order and has had no inclination, since 2020, not to comply with his medication regime in any way. The Tribunal accepts that he has gained insight into his illness and accepts that he must remain medicated for the rest of his life and states that he is at ease with that, and that "Olanzepine is his drug".
4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is fully compliant with the community treatment order and the medication regime and is medically in remission.
5. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant complies with the stringent requirement of the CTO and that he has family support, including from his wife, and four children and has valued support of his friend and employer who is willing to employ him on a part time or full time basis, depending on the applicant's ability to continue work. His family and his friend are committed to supporting him and the Tribunal is satisfied there are extensive protective measures in place with a view to ensuring that he does not re-offend, even in the event of recurrence of symptomatology associated with his illness.
6. Based on the evidence given by the social worker, his treating doctors, the applicant, his wife and his employer, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant's commitment to remain medication compliant and to not offend is genuine and not responsive to the applicant's current visa status. Overall, the Tribunal considers the risk of the applicant re-offending is very low, based on the assessment of Dr Furst.
7. In assessing the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further violent other serious conduct, 8.1.2(2) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account not only information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending, but also evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision. In doing so, the Tribunal has given weight to time spent in the community since the applicant's index offending in 2020. The Tribunal has considered all of the medical evidence and concludes that the applicant is in remission and medication compliant. The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant showed no signs of violent behaviour prior to the index offending and was in the community for 42 years without offending. He has spent several years in the community on various forms of overnight leave before being conditionally released on 22 May 2025 and has shown no signs of resistance concerning his supervision or treatment. He is keen to obtain employment. He spends his days collecting the children from school, supervising their homework and if necessary preparing the meals for the family. He keeps busy and says he exercises daily to keep his weight under control which motivates him. He enquired if he could have access to spearfishing equipment because he is a passionate freediver and fisherman and wants to return to the ocean, and was advised by his social worker and treating doctor that any access to weapons should not be entertained while on conditional release, and the applicant was understanding and compliant. His wife stated that she would have no objections to him going spearfishing because it would demonstrate that he is engaging in his favourite sport, and it would get the boat off the driveway and because she does not consider him at risk to himself or other members of the community.
8. The Tribunal therefore considers that the applicant has demonstrated to a great degree that he is capable of rehabilitation, rehabilitation in this instance referring to adherence to medication to an extent that he is considered in remission and, as per the opinion of his treating and forensic medical experts presents the lowest possible risk of violent re-offending.
9. The Tribunal notes the respondent's legal submissions (SOFIC) accept that the applicant has a low risk of reoffending. The respondent accepts that the applicant is at a low risk of reoffending, but states, given the severity of the index offending, any risk to the Australian community is unacceptable. The Tribunal has taken the respondent's submissions into account, but notes the assessment of Dr Furst, using the assessment tool of HCR20, that the applicant is assessed as representing a not only a low risk of reoffending but a minimal risk of "less than 2%". The Tribunal accepts the expert opinion of Dr Furst. The Tribunal accepts the genuineness of the applicant's commitment to not reoffend in the sense that he has had no inclination to offend, was never previously violent and is now committed to the stringent treatment regime and his depot injections. The Tribunal accepts that there are exceptionally strong protective familial and other factors which are present to assist him not least of which the stringent conditions of the Community Treatment Order (CTO) and the supervision of his social worker.
10. Considering the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal has found the index offending very serious involving unprovoked severe violence. The Tribunal accepts the violence arose in the context of acute severe psychosis which had arisen because the applicant was subject of a treatment regime not well tolerated by him, as a result of which he ceased anti-psychotic medication or took medication intermittently. The Tribunal considers that that the Australian community's tolerance of any risk of future harm decreases as the potential harm increases. In terms of risk of potential herm, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is currently in remission, and adherent to the treatment regime imposed on him under the CTO requiring ongoing psychiatric care under strict supervision. The Tribunal accepts that he presents a low risk of violence now and in future.
11. Balancing these factors overall the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of cancelling the applicant's visa but only moderately so.

1. The respondent concedes there is no evidence that can reasonably satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant has engaged in family violence.[20]
2. The applicant has not committed a family violence offence. This factor is neutral.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia - 8.3

1. In accordance with 8.3(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered any impact of the decision on the applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. As consideration is being given to whether to cancel a visa or to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, the Tribunal is obliged to also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the applicant has to the community. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider:

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

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

1. The applicant first arrived in Australia in 2004 aged 25 and has resided in Australia for 21 years. The applicant's wife, and four children are Australian citizens.
2. The applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community, through his employment as a bricklayer including starting two bricklaying businesses employing between 10 to 15 persons at a time. He has also contributed positively to the Australian community through is involvement with the Lakemba mosque. The applicant has tendered evidence by his employer who states that he would be willing to re-employ the applicant at any time, in any capacity, as foreman or as bricklayer.
3. The applicant's wife gave compelling evidence of the applicant's sustained efforts to be a good husband and father and that despite their separation they very much remain a family unit and she is reliant upon him for childcare. The applicant's wife deposes that she works at a panel beating business and is the sole breadwinner for the family. Without the applicant being able to pick up the children from school, she would either have to cut her hours or engage alternative childcare, reducing her income earning capacity and her ability to provide for the family. The applicant's removal from Australia would place considerable financial pressure on the family.
4. The applicant's eldest daughter RAX has also provided a statement. She speaks of her gratitude to have her father back in her life, attending her year 12 graduation and teaching her to drive. She also speaks of the deep connection between her siblings and the applicant, and how much her younger brothers enjoy going on fishing trips with him. The applicant assists RAX with caring for her younger siblings and getting the groceries while the applicant's wife is at work. According to RAX:

If Dad is sent back to his country, I would have to do so much more and with my university commitments, that seems highly impossible and just too much for me to handle without him. We need him.

5. The applicant's 17-year-old son gave evidence that he went through "tough times" when his father was removed from the family and that the single parent family struggled. He states that "with him back in the picture the overall state of the family has become better and my mother especially".[21]
6. Dr Li reported that the applicant's family, that being the applicant's four children between the ages of 9 to 18 and his ex-wife remain in regular contact with him and they have a positive relationship, such that his wife and children would be impacted negatively and significantly if the applicant's visa was to be cancelled.
7. On the basis of all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that a decision adverse to the applicant would have a devastating effect on the applicant's family. With the exception of his elderly mother and sister, the only family members the applicant has in Lebanon are two brothers with whom he is not on speaking terms. The applicant's other family members, through marriage to his wife, all reside in Australia. Although he remains in contact with his mother and sister, he has no other familial and or social connection to Lebanon.
8. In summary, the Tribunal concludes that if the applicant were removed from Australia his wife would find it difficult to sustain the family financially, and more importantly, she would be the sole carer of four emotionally traumatised children. The family gave sworn statements that they all have a close relationship with the applicant and that the whole family would be devastated if he were removed from Australia. The applicant's wife's family did not provide sworn statements but photographic evidence shows that the applicant has connections to other family members and friends who are Australian citizens. The applicant has referred to a brother-in-law for whom he undertook bricklaying and his former employer who is willing to re-employ him. There is no evidence to support a contention that any family member would move to Lebanon as his immediate family members are Australian citizens and would remain in Australia. The Tribunal concludes that the impact on the applicant's immediate family would be devastating as he contributes to the household with childcare and general support and appears to be significantly positively impacting on the emotional well-being of his four children. Emotionally, his family would undoubtedly suffer if the applicant were to be removed from Australia.
9. The Tribunal was referred to evidence directly concerning the applicant's community and friendships. His son deposes that the applicant spends time with him at the mosque and speaks to him about his religious practices. Noting the length of time the applicant has spent in Australia, the history of employment and his involvement in the mosque,[22] the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has developed friendships and connections in Australia, other than those with his immediate family. The Tribunal concludes from this that the applicant has a relationship with his extended family members, former and current employers and members of the congregation, who would be adversely affected if he were to be removed from Australia.
10. Primarily on the basis of his relationship with his immediate family but also taking into account all other witness statements, the Tribunal considers this consideration weighs strongly against cancelling the visa.

The best interests of minor children in Australia - 8.4

1. In accordance with 8.4(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa is in the best interests of the applicant's three minor children who are currently 9, 10 and 17 years of age.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant lives with his wife and children for a significant part of the week, despite the fact that he has his own two-bedroom residence which is provided to him by a social housing provider. The applicant, his wife and four children continue to have a strong familial bond.
3. The applicant's wife deposes:

He was a very supportive husband and a very attentive and affectionate father who always put his family first. > > [The applicant] comes over to see me and the kids every day. Sometimes he takes them out to eat and on fishing trips. When he was in Morisset and Concord Hospital, I took the kids to see him fortnightly. He is an active father who helps me out with the kids, he takes us places and on nice fishing trips and loves to get involved with the kids to make up for those missed years. [The applicant] loves spending time with the kids, helping with homework and taking them to after-school activities. > > I am writing this letter in the hopes that you will not cancel his visa and potentially have him deported back to his homeland, this would be devastating for my children and me, we have already been through so much stress, depression and uncertainty regarding his illness and all his legal proceedings, we can't bear the thought of having him taken away from us again.[23]

4. During cross examination the applicant's wife, when asked about the effect the applicant's removal would have on her minor children, stated:

It would devastate them. If he is even an hour late to come to our home [from his residence] they ask 'where is daddy', when is he coming. They had some psychological counselling at school after the [index offending] but they are much better since their father is back with them.

5. There is some evidence to suggest that the applicant's prior conduct had a negative impact at least on the youngest son because he witnessed the attack on their neighbour and required counselling directly after the attack. The Tribunal accepts that any likely future violent conduct would have a negative impact on the children but finds that given the extremely low risk rating of recidivism as assessed by Dr Furst (less than 2%) there is almost no likelihood that the applicant's children will be negatively affected in future. There is no evidence that they have been, or are at risk of being, subjected or exposed to family violence perpetrated by the applicant in the past, or that they have otherwise been abused or neglected by the applicant. There is limited evidence that they have suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the applicant's conduct (8.4(4)(h)).
6. The respondent accepts this primary consideration weighs against the cancellation of the visa but contends that it does not outweigh the other primary considerations 1 and 5.

The Tribunals conclusion in respect of interests of minor children

1. Having accepted that the absence of the applicant from the family home for several years has caused some trauma to the children, this trauma is likely to be exacerbated if the applicant were to be deported to Lebanon. The Tribunal has considered that this consideration weighs very strongly against the visa cancellation.

1. In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:

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 remain in Australia.

2. The applicant has failed to obey Australian laws. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community, as his offending is considered very serious.
3. The Tribunal has considered the principle expressed in 5.2(6) of the Direction; that is, that the Australian community 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. The applicant is now 46 years of age and has lived in Australia since he was 25 years of age. He has therefore lived in Australia for almost half of his life and some level of tolerance may be afforded to him by reason of the 21 years he has spent in the community. He was a young man when he arrived in this country, but he cannot be considered to have lived here from a very young age.
4. Given the seriousness of the offending, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant's offending involved very violent conduct, albeit under the effects of psychosis. It falls within the type of conduct which Direction 110 indicates the Australian community expects a visa should be cancelled for.
5. The expectations of the Australian community therefore weigh significantly in favour of the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

1. In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa, the Tribunal must also take into account the other considerations listed in Direction 110 where relevant.

1. As noted above, the applicant is a citizen of Lebanon
2. Paragraphs 9.1 of Direction 110 states that decision makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, 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 if Australia has non refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
3. Should the visa be cancelled, the applicant would be prohibited from applying for other visas by operation of s501E of the Act. The applicant's removal and future exclusion from Australia would be the legal consequence of a decision to cancel the visa which flows from the intended operation of the Act. Having regard to Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[24] the Tribunal finds this consideration weighs at least to some extent in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.[25]

1. The Tribunal must consider any impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia to Lebanon in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards, taking into account his age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him.
2. The respondent acknowledges that the applicant is 46 years of age, has lived in Australia since he was 25 years of age and has a significant mental health diagnosis. The respondent notes that the DFAT country information report for Lebanon as at June 2023 states that mental health resources are scarce and the economic crisis has led to a mass exodus of mental health professionals from Lebanon. It also states that the supply of medicine is unpredictable and there is very little in the way of social welfare.[26]
3. The applicant's evidence supports the contention that that the current economic crisis in Lebanon is such that if the applicant were to be deported, the risks to his mental health and welfare generally are significantly higher than were he to continue to reside in Australia. In particular, he would lose the benefit of the conditional release order as a forensic patient which would increase the risk of having inadequate follow up and discontinuing treatment in the future. He would be removed from his family and friends and where he remains close to his wife and children and he would undoubtedly deteriorate without access to mental health services.[27]
4. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs strongly against cancelling the applicant's visa.

1. There is some evidence that the applicant's removal from Australia would impact on the applicant's employer's business as his employer gave sworn evidence that it is difficult to find bricklayers who have the applicant's expertise to chalk out the building site, reading the plans, which is required of a foreman. However, the applicant's employer confirmed that other persons can be recruited and gain the necessary skills, albeit some time may be required. On balance, the Tribunal does not consider that a decision adverse to the applicant, prompting his removal into immigration detention, would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's circumstances in relation to the various considerations set out in the Direction. It must now carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[28]

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

2. The Tribunal made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction, other considerations being neutral:

(a) The protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs moderately in favour of cancelling the visa. > > (b) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs strongly against cancelling the visa. > > (c) The interest of minor children weighs very strongly against cancelling the visa. > > (d) The expectations of the Australian community weigh strongly in favour of cancelling the visa.

3. The Tribunal made the following findings about the only relevant other considerations in the Direction:

(e) The legal consequences of the decision weigh at least to some extent in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa. > > (f) In respect of the impediments if removed, this consideration weighs strongly against the cancellation of the visa.

4. This is a finely balanced case. The Tribunal concludes that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community, which weighs moderately in favour of cancelling the visa, and the expectations of the Australian community, which weigh strongly in favour of cancelling the visa, do not outweigh the considerations that weigh strongly and very strongly in favour of the applicant; namely the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children. The Tribunal has also weighed the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia which weigh to some extent and strongly against the cancellation of the visa.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conclusion in this regard accords with the weight of the evidence and the principles set out in 5.2 of the Direction. In relation to this, 5.2(2) expressly states that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and the principles otherwise emphasise the interests of the community rather than those of the individual. In this case, the two primary factors weigh moderately and strongly against the applicant, and the other primary considerations weigh strongly and very strongly in favour of the applicant.
6. The applicant has resided in Australia since he was 21 years of age, more than half of his life. His offending was very serious but the evidence supports a finding that the applicant is in remission and has adhered to the very stringent treatment imposed on him by reason of the community treatment order. He has not offended since the index offending and has given no indication of psychosis or delusions since he adhered to his treatment. The compelling evidence of the applicant's forensic psychiatrist is that, even in the event of recurrence of symptoms, the risk of violent reoffending is less than 2%. His immediate family members are committed to him and his wife and four children are demonstrably reliant on him, particularly his minor children. The applicant's ties to the Australian community weigh strongly against exercising the discretion. The best interests of the applicant's minor children are served by the applicant remaining in Australia and this primary consideration weighs very strongly against cancelling the visa. Having regard to the mental health impact the removal of the applicant would have on him and the lack of mental health support services in Lebanon, the impediments he would face in that country are also afforded strong weight. On balance and having weighed the considerations the Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the decision to cancel the visa.
7. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of a delegate of the respondent to cancel the applicant's visa and in substitution decides that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked.

[2] [2022] FCAFC 19.

[3] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[4] Mental health Review Tribunal Report Risk Assessment JTB p.953.

[7] Report of Dr Furst p.20 Supplementary Tender Bundle p. 75.

[12] Decision of DP Walker of the MHRT March 2024.

[13] Sworn oral evidence of Mr RAX, the applicant's employer.

[14] Report of Dr Furst 19 November 2025, supplementary bundle p.21.

[15] Letter of support from Clinical Psychological Registrar 1 November 2025, p.129 Supplementary bundle.

[16] Applicant's statement 8 May 2025, JTB p.160.

[18] Page 15 of the summonsed material, NSW Police , produced on the second day of the hearing.

[19] Applicant's statement 8 May 2205, JTB p.160.

[22] Report of Sarah Heenan dated 8 May 2025, G2, p 116.

[23] G-Documents p. 90 statement of applicant's wife 8 May 2025.

[24] [2024] FCA 1273 at [39]- [43].

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