I know that my offending is very serious and that my former partners should have been able to feel safe around me. I am genuinely sorry for the harm that my actions caused to my partners. I never want to offend in that way again.

6. In cross-examination, the Applicant described the incident with his family as being the result of a communication error with his father. Regarding his conduct with the police in attendance, the Applicant responded to the suggestion he had pushed an officer by stating that he was surrounded and had not heard the allegation before. He denied trying to punch an officer and agreed he may have been swearing, and was unsure about spitting. The Applicant reiterated in his evidence being confused at the time about the incident.
7. The Applicant denied using drugs and stated that he has been sober since his incarceration. He denied being under the influence at the time of the incident with K, and stated that he was asleep when the incident commenced. The Applicant did remember pushing K and described it as a 'self-defence kind of thing'. He stated that he takes ownership of the incident and that he apologised to K at the time. It was put to the Applicant, based on a report of the incident, that he wanted K to be quiet, and he agreed this was the case. The Applicant stated that he wanted her to stop 'shouting and screaming at [him]' as this brought back childhood trauma.
8. When first asked about the incident with A, the Applicant stated he was not 100% sure, and that he 'vaguely remembers certain things'. He also stated that he takes full ownership and is sorry for his actions. In respect of the punch, the Applicant stated that he thought he may have slipped when trying to support her when holding her by the jumper. He also acknowledged that he had been frustrated trying to explain to her his preference that she not move to another venue after already having ordered an Uber. The Applicant stated he was concerned about her level of intoxication and again expressed his sense of frustration in the circumstances.
9. The Applicant did not remember chasing her to the Uber and stated that on arrival at home she gave him the keys to open the door. He guided her inside and held her so as not to fall and denied pushing her to the floor, repeating that he did not remember everything. Consistent with his statement, the Applicant denied pushing into her throat, stating that in a discussion about past situations he had demonstrated a form of self-defence. The Applicant accepted that he plead guilty and also remembered his legal representative putting a similar but somewhat different version of this story to the magistrate. He again denied this demonstration took place on the floor.
10. In her evidence at the hearing, Mrs McKeith confirmed the circumstances and consequences of the Applicant's early TBI as set out in her statement (ATB, 9 [3]-[5]). She refers to the removal of a portion of his skull and later remedial cranioplasty, and consequential issues including bullying at school. Mrs McKeith also confirmed that the Applicant was later diagnosed with ADHD and epilepsy [7]-[11]. In her statement she also addresses aspects of the Applicant's issues with comprehension and memory and his difficulty in finding work [10]-[12].
11. At the hearing, Mrs McKeith described her son's surprise at being woken by the police during the incident at home. She stated that he had not tried to assault the police but was, in brief, somewhat tactile in conversation with people. Mrs McKeith also described the Applicant trying to spit blood from his mouth because he was injured when taken to the ground by the arresting team. Mrs McKeith also mentioned another incident at home in which the Applicant had got 'up in her face' leading her to call the police.
12. I note that the Applicant's father stated in evidence that he was a joint signatory to the statement relied upon by his wife. While some elements of this document are in the first person plural (stating that 'we ...') the balance of the document reads as a first person singular account. I consider the better course is simply to rely upon the father's oral evidence in these circumstances but I note the independent letter of support from Mr McKeith which largely addresses other matters (G19, p 145).
13. With respect to the incident at home, Mr McKeith acknowledged that they had both consumed alcohol and that there was an argument. He stated that he later came to realise that the Applicant had only been trying express his experience and when the police insisted on checking on their son, Mr McKeith advised them the problem was solved. He stated the police threatened to arrest him when he sought to intervene over the treatment received by the Applicant. Additionally the day after the arrest, Mr and Ms McKeith picked their son up from hospital as he had needed treatment for the injury sustained in his arrest.
14. In addition to the brief reference during sentencing to assessment of the Applicant's cognitive function, and to different diversion or related court programs there is a pre-sentence report from the Intellectual Disability Diversion Program (IDDP), dated 9 June 2023 (RTB, p 33), the report of a clinical nurse specialist and authorised mental health practitioner, dated 19 March 2023 (ATB, p 61), and an updated pre-sentence report from the Start Court Program, dated 5 April 2024 (RTB, p 37). In finding that the Applicant is not considered suitable for the IDPP, the first reports states:

[the Applicant] sustained an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) at five years of age, following which he has been reported to experience emotional regulation challenges, aggression, and seizures. The Neuropsychological Report links [the Applicant's] longstanding emotional dysregulation and aggression to his ABI and notes his Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis. Although some cognitive weaknesses were identified, [the Applicant] was assessed to have no global cognitive impairment or neurocognitive disorder which would support a National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) application. However, this same report notes [his] significant symptoms of anxiety and depression and recommends clinical psychology input. > > ... > > In the event of sentencing, [the Applicant] is deemed suitable for a community-based disposition, with parole eligibility supported should a custodial sentence be imposed.

15. Further information arising from this report includes the observation that alcohol use exacerbated the Applicant's aggressive tendencies, and that his longstanding aggression and anger management issues are attributable to the head injury. Reference is also made to chronic anxiety and depression that had no treatment regime. Background factors identified in this report include interpersonal conflict through schooling and within the family unit, and that he framed alcohol use as a coping mechanism.
16. The report of the clinical nurse confirms that the Applicant exited the Start program due to being taken into custody. The updated pre-sentence report from 2024 refers to the Applicant's involvement in the IDDP and Start over a period of 10 months, and repeats the link between offending and underlying health issues noted above.
17. I have considered the substantial amount of medical material lodged by the Applicant (ATB, pp 23-65). The material is dated between 2015 and 2024 and the primary focus is aspects of the Applicant's epilepsy, including tonic-clonic seizures ('grand mal') and compliance with medication regimens. There are references to:
    • a seizure in 2015 (p 23); treatment for mood disturbance and anger (p 24);
    • two seizures in 2018 (p 27); three further seizures later in 2018 in the context of intermittent use of prescribed medication (p 29);
    • a seizure in 2019 (p 33); a brief seizure in early 2021 (p 43);
    • two further 'episodes' later in 2021 (pp 45-46);
    • being found sleeping unclothed in a doorway in Margaret River in April 2022 (p 47);
    • admission after being found wandering on the street in May 2022 (p 49);
    • admission post-seizure in July 2022 (p 50);
    • admission for review following a punch to the head and fall in June 2023 (p 53);
    • psychiatric consultation after being found running into traffic in October 2023 (p 56); and
    • admission and evaluation following assault leading to broken nose in January 2024, with accompanying report of CT scan that confirms prior craniectomy and cranioplasty as well as gliosis (cellular change in response to damage) (p 57).
18. The Applicant acknowledged in closing submissions that the Tribunal must have regard to his guilty plea and the accepted factual circumstances relevant to his convictions. Equally, it was contended that the Applicant's recollection of some events was affected by his memory and he gave evidence that he did not do some of the acts alleged. It was submitted he has no pattern of offending across his time in Australia, and that is offending is confined to relatively limited periods. It was also contended that offending commenced at an advanced age and was out of character. Nonetheless its nature and repetition meant it ought to be understood as very serious.
19. The Applicant's written submission compare the penalties applied in 2024 against the maximum possible sentences and substantial financial penalty options. The Applicant submitted that the maximum total effective sentence which was imposed was substantially lower than that which could have been imposed and were dealt with summarily (ASFIC [46]-[49]). It is contended overall that any weight attributed to this sub-consideration is outweighed by other factors in favour of revocation.
20. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's alternative perspective of the events in his more serious offending was rejected, with reference made also the transcript of submission to the magistrate (RTB, p 49 and 55). It was contended, in part due to the prior family conflict which was reported to police, that the Applicant's behaviour was not out of context and was related to his history of impulse control and management of relationships. Thus, significant weight should be afforded his violent offending against multiple female domestic partners against a background of disregard for court orders.
21. The Respondent's written submission contends that account be taken of the Applicant's aggressive and violent behaviour toward his parents in the incident in 2020 and his later conduct against the police (RSFIC [25]). Submissions also detail the factual elements of the incidents of violence against partners at some length [27]-[28]. It is also contended that the Applicant's adult life is marked by police incidents and an escalation from disorderly conduct to violence [34]. Its cumulative impact should also be taken into account, and it should be seen as very serious overall [35]-[36].
22. It is clear from the terms of the Direction that I must consider the Applicant's violent offending and family violence offending as very serious forms of offending and conduct [8.1.1(1) a)]. Despite the multiple sentences of imprisonment imposed, the Applicant received an effective sentence of 12 months and was found eligible to apply for parole [8.1.1(1) c)]. I note from the Applicant's submissions that the maximums for the individual charges were either two or three years.
23. The volume of charges indicates an intensity of offending, but not necessarily frequency in the sense of the Applicant demonstrating a long criminal record, however there is an escalation in seriousness [8.1.1(1) e)]. I consider some weight ought to be afforded to the cumulative impact of repeated acts of family violence [8.1.1(1) f)].

1. In his statement (G12), the Applicant identifies a number of rehabilitation programs:
   • partial completion of drug, alcohol and violence courses in the Wungening Program from attendance at four or five sessions in which he learned about techniques of talking about anger and dealing with confrontation [30]-[32];
   • several sessions of Narcotics Anonymous/ Alcoholics Anonymous in prison [33]-[35];
   • participation since July 2024 in the Addiction Recovery Process Program at Whitehaven which has contributed to changing his way of thinking by learning to walk away from confrontational situations and red flag situations [35]-[38]; and
   • an anger management program in prison farm, which has assisted in improving how he reacts and finding more appropriate ways to manage disputes, which has contributed to an improved relationship with his father that previously 'was the main cause of the anger and aggression [he] felt'.
2. The Applicant spoke at some length in cross-examination when asked about his participation in rehabilitative programs. Among the insights he stated that he had gained included an ability to view things in a different perspective, techniques to help with anger, communicating in a non-aggressive way, identifying triggers of his frustration, and getting his point across effectively. The Applicant stated that his triggers included being treated like he is stupid, shouting and swearing, and 'being disregarded'.
3. When asked further about techniques he mentioned being aware of how another person is feeling, walking away from confrontation, and breathing techniques. The Applicant described his motivation for participation as the realisation that time in prison was 'not worth it', by which I understood him to mean it was a high price to pay for his behaviour. In response to a question from myself about his experience in prison, he stated that he learned to spend time with people he gets along with.
4. With respect to a possible future in the community, the Applicant stated that he wished to pursue his relapse program and he rejected the idea that he would drink alcohol again. When asked about past issues complying with his epilepsy medication regime, the Applicant acknowledged he did not like taking medication in general, but he does take this medication as he does not want seizures, observing that he had learned that every seizure causes a degree of brain damage. The Applicant also acknowledged issues with memory as a factor here and relied upon reminders from his parents.
5. The Applicant described his relationship with his father as having changed since his time in prison. He stated that he will need assistance engaging with the medical system, confirmed he had not been accepted to the NDIS, and, while he would love to work, he had experienced disappointment in the past with employers because of his epilepsy. The Applicant described his experience in volunteering, including at his mother's church, and stated he would occupy himself so that he is not entirely dependent upon his parents.
6. I also put some further questions to the Applicant about the issue of family violence and his future approach to relationships. He responded that he had completed one online course in immigration detention and was undertaking one in anger management. I understood him to state that he had been moved a number of times in prison, making program engagement difficult, though he intended to make domestic violence his priority. The Applicant stated he had gained knowledge about how your mind and body work 'in those situations'. I put further questions to explore his appreciation of what that meant and the Applicant added that he learned how to avoid expressing things in a confrontational manner and to avoid escalation.
7. In further questions, the Applicant stated that he was 'done for now' with personal relationships. He said with epilepsy and a search for work he 'had enough problems without dealing with their problems as well'. He believed that he had inherited empathy for other people's issues from his mother and would now adopt a different approach.
8. In re-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he had a relationship when younger that he considered to be successful or healthy. I note the declaration of Ms Wendy Less, who states that her daughter was in a relationship with the Applicant as a teenager, and that he always treated her daughter with respect (ATB, p 18 [1]).
9. In her declaration, Mrs McKeith describes the Applicant's difficulties in finding and maintaining employment and his reliance upon the parents for support, food and accommodation [12]-[16]. Such support included paying for fines arising from him losing transport tickets. Mrs McKeith also states her husband had been strict with their children and that the Applicant had wished in the past for a better relationship with his father [22]-[25]. She describes the Applicant walking to his program at Wungening and states that she considers him to have 'improved immensely' including through counselling at Whitehaven [35]-[38].
10. In her evidence, Mrs McKeith confirmed her attendance at the Applicant's Start Court hearings. She also reiterated that the Applicant enjoyed his counselling and that she saw a definite change in him, with his confidence improving. Mrs McKeith also stated that the relationship between father and son has definitely changed since prison. She stated that previously she and her husband had worked night and day shifts and they were never home together, but prison gave them the opportunity to sit and talk as a family. In her opinion, the Applicant will continue with counselling and she has contacted Whitehaven who will have him back.
11. In cross-examination, Mrs McKeith was asked about the reference in her statement to the Applicant's drinking habits and experience with fights [36]. She did not necessarily think he had a problem with alcohol, but rather in controlling himself when drinking. Mrs McKeith also reiterated here that the emotional bond between father and son has improved, and she also considers the Applicant now to have learned how to avoid conflict.
12. Mr McKeith confirmed that the Applicant had been reliant upon him for transport to go out in the evenings, and that they would continue to support him 'where [they] can' if he returns to the community. Mr McKeith also stated that he had seen a change in his son following engagement in counselling and it was his understanding that his son had remained all day at Wungening to participate in more sessions than he was enrolled in. Mr McKeith considered the greatest impact came from the Whitehaven work which had softened the Applicant's anger and 'made him lovable'. This work had also had an impact upon Mr McKeith who said that he now understands the physical and mental aspects of his son better. Mr McKeith stated that despite its cost, they were prepared to continue frequent support sessions with Whitehaven. I asked Mr McKeith what his approach would be to alcohol consumption in the future and he responded that he would 'keep alcohol off the premises' in order to support the Applicant.

1. Ms Chadwick describes in her report the administration of a number of testing instruments (ATB, p 66). I will summarise her findings briefly:
   • the Applicant demonstrated 'a highly uneven cognitive patter' with verbal reasoning average and 'all other domains substantially impaired' with working memory described as 'borderline' (4th percentile), the observations being consistent with childhood TBI [11];
   • the Applicant demonstrated 'severe overall psychological distress' (97.9th percentile), a result that 'further reduces cognitive efficiency' [12]-[13]; and
   • a self-report of executive functioning resulted in deficits consistent with TBI and ADHD which 'hinder his ability to manage interpersonal conflict without escalation'.
2. With respect to the offending, Ms Chadwick reports that the Applicant demonstrated limited insight to how his behaviour could be perceived as threatening and while he expressed some remorse, there was evidence of 'minimisation and externalisation of responsibility' [26]. His pattern of choosing partners with mental health and substance use issues, she states, appeared to relate to the Applicant's experience of marginalisation and placed him in volatile situations exceeding his emotional regulation capabilities [27].
3. Ms Chadwick states that the Applicant's clinical presentation reflects 'a complex interplay of neurodevelopmental injury, psychological trauma, and executive functioning deficits' and these collectively impair his ability to self-regulate and maintain adaptive functioning [28]. These deficits render him 'highly susceptible to emotional dysregulation in relational contexts' particular in situations of conflict or threat. She considers that the Applicant's risk factors are 'less indicative of antisocial orientation than of a persistent neurological syndrome' [31]. Ms Chadwick makes the following diagnoses [32]:
   • Neurocognitive Disorder due to Traumatic Brain Injury, Mild (with behavioural disturbance);
   • Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Presentation (provisional);
   • Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate to Severe; and
   • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (provisional).
4. Ms Chadwick assesses risk of reoffending as 'a moderate and situationally dependent risk' closely tied to his identified deficits rather than antisocial intent [33]. She emphasises that his neurological deficits are enduring and likely to persist without intensive support [34]. Ms Chadwick opines that the risk level is modifiable noting the absence of 'psychopathy or instrumental aggression' and his remorse (albeit constrained by cognitive rigidity) [35]. She also observes that the Applicant is unable to function 'without substantial external supports' [36]. Ms Chadwick sates that he 'requires a multidisciplinary intervention tailored to the interplay of neurological and psychological vulnerabilities' and delivered long-term and consistently [37]-[39].
5. In cross-examination Ms Chadwick described the impact of the Applicant's deficits as resulting in him being impulsive and having difficulty 'down regulating', difficulty with strategies, and problem-solving threats. With respect to scope for change following further therapeutic intervention she stated that, given his history of TBI, he has 'generally seen most of the improvement' at the neurological level, but he can learn strategies with intensive support. This support, however, needs to be carefully presented. That is, because of the Applicant's better level of language production and comprehension, he gives the impression of having greater cognitive capacity than he actually possesses.
6. Ms Chadwick therefore highlighted the need for pursuing one-on-one interventions and queried the effectiveness of his coping strategies, as well as his ability to maintain the motivation to engage outside of a structured environment. The Applicant is also more likely to be engaged in treatment if the treatment is facilitated by family support. Ms Chadwick reiterated the benefit of one-on-one interventions because of his lower functioning as a result of his processing speed, which falls on the intellectual disability band. Thus, saying he would in future 'avoid crazy people' was not an example of an adaptive strategy.
7. That said, Ms Chadwick clarified that not all forms of avoidance are maladaptive. However, the Applicant demonstrated a tendency to derive self-worth from relationships and therefore were he to become isolated this may further lower his self-esteem. For this reason the Applicant needs alternative emotional regulation coping strategies. His functioning is further limited by alcohol use by himself or another party with whom he is interacting. Ms Chadwick considered that the Applicant had minimised the significance of alcohol at interview, but also stated that it is not his primary risk factor.
8. With respect to her risk assessment, Ms Chadwick described it as complex and dynamic. In the community, his needs could be met in a pro-social way through having no relationship, a supported work environment and extracurricular activities. However, the risk was much higher in a relationship due to his attachment needs. A poor-quality relationship, use of alcohol and being required to function very independently would increase the risk. When asked if the Applicant would benefit from family violence intervention, she replied that courses were not as effective as one-on-one treatment.
9. In response to a question from myself, Ms Chadwick described the Applicant's epilepsy as a secondary factor that limited his capacity for independent functioning that could reduce social engagement. She also confirmed her familiarity with risk assessment frameworks from a prior career in the justice system in assessing men with anti-social behaviour disorders; she had incorporated a framework of static and dynamic risk factors into her assessment of the Applicant.
10. Before addressing submissions on this primary consideration I note the report of the Applicant's first parole review in which it is recorded that he was denied parole in June 2024 (RTB, p 80). The notes indicate the Parole Board considered him to have unmet treatment needs and had also not had the opportunity to engage in treatment programs in custody due to the length of his sentence. This together with prior breaches of protective orders and poor bail compliance in 2023 rendered the Applicant an unacceptable risk to the community if released.
11. I have also considered the Offender Notes in the materials (RTB, pp 109-114). There appear to be a number of instances of non-attendance to obtain medication, some instances of the Applicant sleeping at the incorrect time and some instances of him being in the wrong unit. There is also at least one report of him working well in the laundry and mixing well with others. It also appears he did not attend scheduled sessions of AOD counselling, but the officer was aware that the Applicant was attending Whitehaven at this time.
12. For the Applicant, it was submitted that the risk of reoffending is low. It was contended that the Applicant had complied with the domestic violence order in place until October 2025, and that he has a clear awareness of the impact of his conduct on the victims. This is evidence, it was submitted, by his apology to his victims and also his appreciation of the consequences of his offending for him personally. Given the importance of anger management for his offending, it was submitted the programs that he has completed provide relevant rehabilitative insight. Further, the Applicant is committed to ongoing intervention.
13. It was also contended that the evidence demonstrates the Applicant has a quality of family support now that has not previously existed. While Ms Chadwick emphasised the heightened risk in personal relationships, the evidence shows that the Applicant has the capacity to recognise when he is becoming overwhelmed. Submissions noted the level of intervention provided to date including 10 attendances at Start Court and 16 AOD group sessions at Wungening (ATB, pp 62-63). In conclusion, it was contended that the risk for the Applicant reoffending is dynamic and overall should not be considered unacceptable.
14. Written submissions for the Applicant note the complication arising from both acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and a continuing challenge to the nature and circumstances of his offending (ASFIC [62]-[63]). Submissions highlight his commitment to sobriety and maintenance of it in the porous detention system [73]-[74]. They also point to the completion of a voluntary program with Whitehaven comprising 21 hours of one-on-one sessions (over fourteen individual sessions) and the creation of a relapse prevention plan [78], [80]. If an unacceptable risk of reoffending is found, it should not outweigh considerations that weigh in favour of revocation [91].
15. The Respondent contended that the parties agree that the nature of the harm arising from further offending is of a significant kind. It was also submitted that an appropriate framework is provided by the reasoning in CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70. That is, it is relevant to consider the regularity of an event in the past, the conditions under which it occurred, and the likelihood that those conditions have changed so as to interrupt the cycle of regularity. Three reasons were advanced for the proposition that the ongoing risk is an unacceptable one. First, the Applicant lacked insight into the causative factors of his offending. For example it was put that he cannot take ownership in circumstances where he lacks recall. Further the evidence as to his withdrawal from alcohol was contradicted in the material (G18, p 135) and was noted as an area of concern by Ms Chadwick.
16. Second, it was contended that the areas of rehabilitation engaged in to date were not to be considered as specific to the Applicant's needs. For example, Ms Chadwick recommends intensive one-to-one support and questioned the value of prior group work. It was also submitted here that the positive evidence of future support by the parents lacked detail about the likely nature of any future rehabilitation.
17. Third, it was contended that concern should arise from the apparently limited scope of the Applicant's insight into appropriate behaviour modification. In short, since life is stressful and the Applicant draws self-worth from relationships, an avoidance strategy is unrealistic. Therefore, the moderate risk assessment should pertain and the evidence at hearing is not a basis to lower it.
18. The Direction observes here that a decision-maker should have regard to the stance expressed in the principles, being that the community's tolerance for any risk of future harm lowers as the potential seriousness of harm rises; some harm may be so serious that any chance of repeat is unacceptable [8.1.2(1)].
19. It is therefore first necessary to consider the nature of harm that would arise from any future reoffending, and to then consider this cumulatively with the likelihood of it arising [8.1.2(2)]. I consider any repeat of the very serious conduct in the form of physical assaults and breach of family violence orders in respect of intimate partners would cause potentially significant physical and psychological harm to members of the community [8.1.2(2) a)]. I must also consider information and evidence on risk and evidence of rehabilitation achieved to date [8.1.2 b) i)].
20. In respect of the evidence concerning likelihood, a key element is the clinical assessment conducted by Ms Chadwick. The parties clearly differ on the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence overall about the potential of a moderate risk of reoffending being reduced further through effective support in the community. The answer to this also lies to an important extent in understanding what steps the Applicant has taken in rehabilitation. Prior to addressing that, I consider it relevant to observe that Ms Chadwick's report and evidence presents a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the Applicant's capabilities and limitations, or cognitive and functional deficits. It qualifies to an extent the clinical insights relied upon by the sentencing magistrate and I consider it appropriate to place due weight on the Chadwick material accordingly.
21. On the matter of reoffending, having heard directly from the Applicant and his parents, and considered the range and scope of rehabilitation work undertaken to date, I do not consider the Respondent's contentions to be as forceful as they first appear. The Applicant has undertaken a relatively substantial amount of counselling, much of it one-on-one. He has committed to being sober, and has the support of his family. I consider, further, that the evidence shows a critical shift in the joint understanding within the family unit of the nature of the Applicant's needs, and the manner in which they can be supported.
22. I accept that Ms Chadwick's analysis is measured and - if anything - thoughtfully conservative. She placed particular emphasis on the Applicant's personal emotional needs and this provided some important insight into the dynamics of relationships for him, with his particular cognitive deficits. Along with this she expressed some concern about the depth of his strategies. It appears to me from questioning the Applicant that he does indeed tend to display a degree of cognitive rigidity (in Ms Chadwick's words) and that this may be one of the constraints upon either or both his capacity to identify issues in interpersonal conflict and to avoid escalation. I also not the discussion at the hearing about whether avoiding critical incidents in prison and detention is a useful indicator.
23. I consider important elements for the Applicant's success in the community to be abstinence from alcohol, the development in time of healthy relationships and engagement outside the family, and ongoing support with key activities of daily living, in this case primarily maintenance of medical and therapeutic support. It appears that this latter element will be provided by the parents, and as noted, I consider a critical change to have influenced the family dynamic for the better. The greatest vulnerability appears to relate to the question of social engagement and relationships, and I accept that avoidance is not sustainable in the longer term.
24. With two of three critical factors likely to be in place immediately and in my consideration likely to be effective for the foreseeable future, it remains for the Applicant to engage in further relevant therapeutic support. As this remains an area of some uncertainty, with respect to its scope, duration and effectiveness, I do not accept that he is a low risk of offending, but rather at a point between low and moderate. Because of the number of factors that I consider likely to be in place and the Applicant's commitment to change I consider the risk to be acceptable.

1. I noted the Applicant's submissions in respect of the sub-considerations above. The Respondent contends this primary consideration be given significant and determinative weight against revocation.
2. I have found that the Applicant has engaged in very serious offending the repetition of which carries some cumulative weight. I have also found that he represents an acceptable ongoing risk of reoffending, but one that is above low and below medium.
3. Accordingly, I find that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

1. This primary consideration reflects the serious concerns held by the Government in conferring the right to remain in Australia upon non-citizens who have engaged in family violence, a concern proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct [8.2(1)]. This primary consideration is engaged due to the Applicant's criminal history, and also to an extent due to allegations of other family violence conduct [8.2(2)].
2. I note that in addition to the discussion at the hearing about the incident at home in which police attended, an earlier incident in 2017 was raised involving the Applicant's sister. Mrs McKeith stated in evidence, contrary to the police report (RTB, 157) that only one kitchen knife was involved but otherwise was unable to address the matter further due to the time that has passed since the incident.
3. The Applicant acknowledged in submissions that the family violence convictions, in particular assaults against intimate partners, means that this primary consideration weighs against revocation. The Respondent contends that it weighs heavily against revocation. In support it was submitted that the Applicant lacks insight into his offending and into its impact, as well as having not undertaken sufficient efforts to address it. Written submissions also point to evidence that indicates incidents of family violence within the home, being acts of verbal violence against the Applicant's parents and sister (RSFIC [48]).
4. I must consider the seriousness of family violence conduct with reference to its frequency, cumulative effect where repeated, and any rehabilitation achieved [8.2(3)]. I accept, consistent with the parties' submissions, that the Applicant has indeed plead guilty to repeat instances of physical violence against partners and breaches of orders. These alone are matters that must carry significant weight here. I am much less concerned about instances of conflict in the family home. It appears to me from the evidence overall that no single instance that arises from the material and the evidence was particularly concerning in nature. I cannot otherwise explain, however, how it came to be that Mrs McKeith considered calling the police an appropriate way to defuse intrafamilial conflict given her son's cognitive and other health issues.
5. The Respondent is broadly correct to reiterate here the reservations already addressed above about the nature and extent of the Applicant's rehabilitation specific to family violence. I consider his work to date however to be at least partially relevant.
6. Overall, I find that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. In his statement (G12), the Applicant confirms that his immediate family are all permanent residents or citizens and he refers to a number of cousins, and an uncle and aunt [49]. He states that he has built a strong foundation of friends in Australia having left New Zealand when he was 16, with only an aging step-grandmother there [50]-[51].
2. I have set out above aspects of the Applicant's parents' support for their son over his life and while in the justice system, and Mrs McKeith notes in her statement the ongoing visits in detention (ATB, p 14 [37]). Ms McKeith expresses her love for her son and the family ties including their joint faith activities, and Mrs McKeith states how distressing separation from him would be, and the challenge of considering re-establishing themselves in New Zealand if required [39]-[42]. More specifically, she observes that the concern of the parents if separated would be not only for the Applicant's welfare, but his capacity to survive without support, fearing he may die from a seizure [45]-[47]. Mc McKeith also speaks to the challenge of possible relocation both in the face of the parents adopting Australian citizenship and the impact it will have on their lives (G19, p 145).
3. I noted above the Applicant's evidence about his volunteer work and I have considered the large number of supporting statements in the materials (G19). These come from a range of friends and family and indicate not only the closeness of the immediate family group and their integration into a faith community, but in general support the good character of the Applicant and more specifically, his contribution to the community through volunteer activity.
4. With respect to the concern of the Applicant's parents about his welfare, I note also that in evidence at the hearing both the Applicant and Mrs McKeith stressed their understanding of epilepsy as including that every seizure carries risk for the Applicant, and each additional seizure increases the risk of potentially fatal consequences. I also refer to and repeat here to the extent necessary the summary of evidence about the Applicant's limited employment history resulting, largely as I understand it, from the limitations arising from his medical conditions.
5. For the Applicant it was submitted that Australia has been his permanent home since 2014 and that across his time in Australia his lack of employment has been a result of factors outside his control. Indeed, he has contributed through volunteer work where possible. I note also the elaboration of aspects of the Applicant's education and vocational training in written submissions (ASFIC [106]-[110]). It was acknowledged that the impact of a decision on the Applicant's sister was less than that on his parents, for whom the dilemma of moving country was a substantial concern. The evidence points to significant and justified concerns for the Applicant's welfare and it was contended that due to the impact upon the parents, this primary considerations weighs very heavily in favour of revocation.
6. The Respondent relies here upon its written submissions (RSFIC [56]-[63]). With respect to residence, the Respondent notes that the Applicant only permanently relocated to Australia as an adult, reducing the positive weight of this as a factor. The Applicant's contribution to the community and extended family and social network are also acknowledged. It is also accepted removal would cause the parents some emotional distress and that relocation would carry a cost. Ultimately, it is contended that to the extent this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, it is not outweighed by other countervailing considerations.
7. I consider that the impact of a decision upon immediate family members in this case is quite substantial [8.3(1)]. The evidence points clearly to a close family bond given the high dependence of the Applicant upon his parents, and I consider their view about his vulnerability to be highly relevant.
8. The Applicant's wider ties to Australia and the community are overall quite substantial [8.3(2)]. Notwithstanding some international movement in the family biography, the Applicant has accumulated the usual range of engagements through schooling and social connections and did not commence offending at an early age or soon after his arrival in Australia. I consider he has made a positive contribution to the extent his circumstances have permitted.
9. Overall, therefore, I find this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

1. This primary consideration is not engaged based upon the materials before me, supported by the submissions of the parties. Accordingly it weighs neutrally.

1. This primary consideration is expressed normatively as a 'deemed' expectation reflecting the principle that failure to obey the law or an unacceptable risk of this occurring means the Government ought not allow a non-citizen to remain [8.5(1)]. The Direction also provides that the nature of character concerns alone may lead to this result, and it identifies acts of family violence as a category of conduct which may trigger this expectation, regardless of whether there is a measurable risk of it recurring [8.5(2)-(3)].
2. It is contended for the Applicant that he does not pose an unacceptable risk to the community, but this consideration weighs against revocation due to the nature of his offending. The Respondent contends that due to the terms of the Direction the likelihood is that this primary consideration will in most cases lead to non-revocation but without dictating an inflexible conclusion (RSFIC [68]). On account of the Applicant's family violence offending, it is submitted the consideration is engaged and weighs heavily against revocation [69].
3. On the basis of the Applicant's repeat and serious family violence offending I find that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

1. This other consideration is framed around any claims made that return to a place may carry a risk of harm, understood by the concept of protection obligations set out in the Act. No such claims have been made, nor do they arise from the material before me.
2. I accept that this other consideration also emphasises the immigration detention regime in place, noting that unlawful non-citizens are liable to detention prior to removal as soon as reasonably practicable [9.1(1)].
3. Notwithstanding Mr McKeith's medical concerns I do not consider they raise to the level that a period of detention in these circumstances, should it arise, carries consequences of note for him. It was submitted for the Applicant that if removed, Mr McKeith would face a prohibition on return, but this was not expanded upon by either party at the hearing.
4. I find that this other consideration weighs neutrally.

1. In his statement (G12) the Applicant expresses his concern should he have to go back to New Zealand alone and reiterates his dependence upon his mother for a range of medical and other support [50]-[52]. He confirmed in his evidence that he understands his step-grandmother is his only direct relative living in New Zealand, and he understood her to be incapable to applying a similar level of assistance. In her statement, Mrs McKeith elaborates on the concerns expressed for her son's welfare [46]. She cites the Applicant's memory issues lead to issues with communication, including often losing his phone. Mrs McKeith states that she is concerned he may end up on the streets within days and describes the impact upon him of a seizure, which can last for days. Mrs McKeith confirms the step-grandmother is elderly and unwell and that the Applicant has no relationship with Mr McKeith's step-brothers [47].
2. Mrs McKeith spoke to her concerns in her oral evidence, restating the risks arising for the Applicant of forgotten or missed medication. Both Mrs McKeith and her husband confirmed that they had recently spent some weeks travelling in New Zealand and had met with Mr McKeith's step-mother and his step-siblings. This was their first return trip in many years and I understood them to indicate that they ordinarily have quite limited regular contact with these family members.
3. For the Applicant it was submitted that he has never returned to New Zealand, that he is not close to his relatives and has no extant social circle there. It was contended that even as an adult he could legitimately be considered a dependent of his parents, and reference was made to aspects of the wider medical material lodged in this matter on this point. Particular reference was made to the Applicant's mental health challenges as well as the clinical opinion of Ms Chadwick that he would struggle in an unsupported environment. Given his greater than normal need for social and medical support, it was contended that he faces a commensurably higher barrier to integration. The increased risk of seizures was, in his case, also potentially life threatening. For this reason, it was put that this other consideration should carry extremely heavy weight in favour of revocation and to an extent that outweighs other primary considerations.
4. The Respondent placed particular emphasis on the relatively low threshold embedded in this other consideration. Indeed, reference was made to the view of the delegate in the decision under review that New Zealand offers a comparable level of welfare, health care and housing support to Australia. It was contended that if the consequences of removal for the Applicant's welfare are as severe as argued for, then it is fanciful to consider that immediate family would not support him, or that the parents would not provide adequate initial support on his return. It was also contended that the evidence indicates there is at least a prospect of the parents relocating. Written submissions described the impediments as not insurmountable, and it is contended that this consideration should not outweigh the primary considerations that are against revocation (RSFIC [77]).
5. This consideration establishes a relatively low threshold as the measure of impediments, being establishing and maintaining a basic standard of living comparable to other nationals [9.2(1)]. One specified sub-consideration is a person's health and I accept the general thrust of the Applicant's submission on this point. He has a unique set of relatively complex health issues which place him in a potentially highly vulnerable position when his ordinary supports are absent. I have already considered the medical evidence which supports the parents' view about the immediate impact of seizures. The health factors do, I consider, complicate the capacity of the Applicant to access any available health or welfare supports. I also consider the evidence overall to demonstrate that he would not only face an initial period of challenges but that he would require ongoing capability to maintain such access.
6. For these reasons, I find that this other consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

1. No substantive submissions were made on this other consideration and, given the Applicant's particular circumstances, no issues relevantly arise from the evidence or material before me. Accordingly, this other consideration weighs neutrally.

1. I have already noted the role of the principles in the Direction in providing a framework for the decision as to whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. In addition, the Direction provides that the primary consideration protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and that, otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations [7(2)]. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations [7(3)].
2. I have found that three primary considerations weigh heavily against revocation: protection of the Australian community; family violence; and, expectations of the Australian community. I have also found that strength, nature and duration of ties weighs heavily for revocation, and the remaining consideration weighs neutrally.
3. I have found that the other consideration extent of impediments if removed weighs heavily in favour of revocation and the additional specified other considerations weigh neutrally. I have not relied upon any further other considerations.
4. It is well recognised that I must make a wholistic assessment of the relative significance of the different considerations in coming to a decision. There are clearly a number of important matters that weigh against the Applicant stemming from his guilty plea to very serious offending. Special emphasis is placed in several parts of the Direction upon family violence which reflects the inherently serous concerns about this type of conduct which is a critical breach of the overarching priority of community safety and protection of women.
5. However, the Applicant presents as an offender with an unusual set of personal circumstances. It is challenging in these circumstances to give due weight to the impact upon victims and the community of his offending, while also acknowledging his personal areas of vulnerability. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the Applicant's medical background and current presentation and diagnoses place him in a different category to the general case.
6. While he presents with a measureable ongoing risk I have found this not to be unacceptable. I also consider the evidence overall to demonstrate that his unusual personal circumstances explains - but does not justify - his very serious offending. I have also found that he faces serious impediments were he to be returned to New Zealand and, on account of this factor and his ties to Australia I find that there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal decides to set aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Special Category (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa should be revoked.