CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

On 14 May 2025, the Applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act ('mandatory cancellation decision').
On 21 May 2025, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.[4]
On 28 November 2025, the delegate of the Respondent decided under s 501CA(4) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision ('non-revocation decision').[5]
On 1 December 2025, the Applicant was notified of the non-revocation decision.[6]
On 5 December 2025, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the non-revocation decision with the Tribunal.[7]

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs | Case summary | Zoe

[12]

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. > > (3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia. > > (4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

[31]

The Applicant has also been sentenced for similar offending which took place in 2003. A summary of that offending follows.
On 12 December 2003, the Applicant was sentenced at the Local Court of New South Wales for the offence of supply cannabis in an amount greater than an indictable quantity.[35] At the time of the offending, the Applicant was working for a removalist company and residing in Christies Beach in South Australia.[36]
On 2 September 2003, the Applicant and his co-offender were approached by police while refuelling their truck in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales.[37] When police inspected the contents of the truck, they located three sealed boxes each containing cannabis.[38]
The boxes were found to contain a total of 25 vacuum wrapped packages of cannabis.[39] The cannabis was dry and believed to be of high quality.[40] The total weight of the drugs was estimated at 13.85 kgs of cannabis, with an estimated street value of $692,500.[41]
The Applicant and his co-offender were arrested and taken into custody. The Applicant told police that he was approached by a male at the pub in Christies Beach and was asked on three occasions to transport boxes to Sydney while the Applicant did his removalist work.[42] The Applicant declined on two occasions but finally agreed to carry the boxes from Adelaide to Sydney due to 'excessive bills and lack of money'. The Applicant told police he knew the boxes contained marijuana and he was to be paid $2,000 cash for delivering it to Sydney.[43] The Applicant said he was remorseful and desperate for funds.[44]
For this offending, the Applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four months.[45] The sentence was backdated to commence on 2 September 2003, which meant the Applicant was eligible for parole on 1 January 2004.[46]
As part of his parole conditions, the Applicant was directed to obey all reasonable directions of the Department of Community Corrections in regard to counselling or drug and alcohol rehabilitation.[47]

[36]

The Applicant told the Tribunal his upbringing was 'not good.' He came to Australia as a 20-year-old and had always worked since his arrival. He had various jobs including as a truck driver, factory worker and as a shopfitter. He has lived in various locations including Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and South Australia.
The Applicant said he had a motorcycle accident in 1984 which left him with 10% feeling in his arm which later required surgery. He also sustained a workplace injury to his back which resulted in him losing his employment at one stage. The Applicant told the Tribunal he has had issues with his health in his past and has had triple bypass heart surgery. He said he also has ongoing numbness in his leg. The Applicant was also diagnosed with a benign tumour behind his pituitary gland. He is currently on medication to manage this condition.
The Applicant was diagnosed with depression in 2025 and takes anti-depressant medication. He regularly takes Panadol to manage some ongoing pain.
He met his ex-parter when her children (Ms TW and Mr BW) were little. He became a father figure to them. The children are now adults. The Applicant is the grandfather of Ms TW's daughter Ms OW. He described the family unit as very close. He said he also has adult nephews in Sydney.
The Applicant said that prior to his arrest, he spoke with Ms TW on the phone every day and said he helped her once or twice a month with the gardening. He described their relationship as an 'excellent' relationship. He agreed that his drug use in 2023 did sour the relationship at that stage. When the Applicant was in prison he spoke with Ms TW every week by phone. Since he has been in immigration detention, he speaks to her every day.
The Applicant said that he also speaks to Ms OW and Mr BW every day since he arrived in immigration detention. He said if he is released into the community he would resume living with Mr BW, whom he used to live with before his arrest. The Applicant said that the parole board has approved him returning to live with Mr BW. The Applicant said he would be required to report to a correctional officer which is located close to his residence.
The Applicant said he was Mr BW's main carer before he was incarcerated. He said Mr BW has mental health challenges, and needs intensive support, including assistance with shopping and attending appointments. The Applicant said since he has been incarcerated, Ms TW has taken on the role of Mr BW's carer. Mr BW currently lives on his own, and Ms TW provides assistance to him. It has been difficult for Ms TW to carry that burden, because she sustained a workplace injury and has required surgery in the past.
The Applicant said before he was incarcerated, he spoke with Ms OW every day by phone but didn't speak to her when he was in gaol because he couldn't afford the phone calls. He speaks to her every day now he is in immigration detention. He said he last saw her in person three years ago before he was arrested.
The Applicant said that if he is not allowed to remain in Australia, he plans to move to the northern part of New Zealand and live and work with a cousin who lives there. The Applicant said those plans are not formalised as yet, because his cousin still has to speak to his employer about any future job opportunities. The Applicant said he has siblings who live in Auckland but they don't really get along and he wouldn't plan to reside with them in the future. He has been offered accommodation with one of his brothers and noted that that brother is undergoing cancer treatment at the moment.
If he is released into the Australian community, the Applicant plans to obtain work as a courier driver.

[37]

During cross-examination, the Applicant was taken to his criminal history.[52] He agreed that the criminal history was accurate. He said that he has an outstanding matter with the Australian Taxation Office regarding unpaid tax.[53] The Applicant was not sure whether that matter is civil or criminal in nature.
The Applicant was then questioned about his primary drug offending for which he was convicted and sentenced by the Northern Territory Supreme Court on 18 July 2024. He said he met his co-offender (SR) when he lived in Darwin. He said the pair had exchanged phone calls and text messages for about three months prior to the offending. He said he had never met his other co-offender (JM).
The Applicant agreed with the facts as stated in the sentencing remarks. He said the motivation to commit the offending was to obtain money so he could pay his tax debt. The Applicant said he was promised $4,000 for his role in the offending, and that he would get paid when he returned to Adelaide. He said he was in financial hardship at the time, as he was on the dole. He said he was also behind on his bills. At the time of the offending he resided in Christies Beach, South Australia with his stepson Mr BW. His stepson still resides in that property. The Applicant estimated that he owed approximately $13,000 in unpaid bills. He told the Tribunal that those debts are still outstanding. The Applicant said it was his intention when released from immigration detention, to commence working as a courier driver to help pay his debts. He said he owns his home in Christies Beach and there is no mortgage over the property.
The Applicant said he met his co-offender for the most recent offending through people he met at the pub. He was promised 'quick money' by this person. He said he was asked to transport boxes from Adelaide to Alice Springs. The Applicant said he wasn't told what was in the boxes although he had a 'rough idea'. The Applicant said he was foolish to do it, and his actions have left his family devastated.
He said he realised he had done the wrong thing when he was about halfway through his journey of transporting the drugs. He agreed that before he picked up the van, he knew the deal was 'dodgy' but did it anyway. The Applicant agreed he didn't tell his friends or family what he was doing as he didn't want to involve them.
The Applicant agreed that he took on a lot of risk for the sake of $4,000. He said he was motivated to get out of his financial situation at the time but now understands in hindsight the risk was not worth it.
The Applicant was taken to a report written by the Northern Territory Parole Board in March 2025.[54] Under the heading 'General attitude towards sentence and imprisonment' he agreed that he told the officer that he felt the sentence he received was a 'bit harsh' and he thought he 'was going to get time served.' He agreed that he thought it was harsh at the time, but now he sees it as a fair sentence. He said that time in prison has changed his view.
The Applicant was asked questions about his 2003 conviction for supplying cannabis. He said at the time he was working with someone who was a truck driver and had agreed to travel with them to Sydney to pick up furniture and bring it back to Adelaide. The Applicant said he didn't know there were drugs in the vehicle. He agreed he pleaded guilty to the offending and went to gaol. He later accepted what was written in the police facts was accurate, and if the police recorded his admissions to the offending, then he must have said those things. The Applicant was asked whether he was concerned that he had developed a pattern of offending whereby he was transporting drugs. He said he had turned his life around since the offending.
The Applicant also acknowledged his prior conviction in 2002 for possession of a prohibited drug (being cannabis). He agreed he has an outstanding matter of offence of drive with excess blood alcohol for which a warrant was issued in 2023.

[38]

The Applicant was taken to his Parole Report which was dated April 2025 and prepared by Northern Territory Community Corrections.[55] He agreed with what was stated in that report under 'Substance misuse and treatment history'. That is, that he commenced using alcohol and drugs when he was approximately 12 years of age. He told the Tribunal that he started using cannabis then, and his drug use fluctuated over time. He said he used to use cannabis three or four times a week. He said he hasn't used cannabis in the last three years. The last time he consumed cannabis was in 2023, and he said that prior to that, he had given up drinking and smoking for 22 years. The Applicant said he had attended three Alcoholics Anonymous sessions in the past. To the best of his recollection, he attended these sessions in the 1990's.
The Applicant said he returned to drug use in 2023 because he was hanging around with the wrong people. He said when he relapsed, he used cannabis for approximately one month in 2023 and then he stopped. The Applicant said he always smoked outside of his own house (in a garage area), or at a friend's house. He said that group of friends has now moved away from his local area. He said he was exposed to illegal drugs whilst he was growing up. He denied being addicted to cannabis. He said he would use cannabis three to four times a week for about one month. He didn't believe he was addicted but accepted he used cannabis from the age of 11 or 12.
The Applicant admitted to using other illicit substances such as cocaine and LSD but said he wasn't addicted to those substances. He couldn't afford to continue to use cocaine. He said he first used cocaine when he was 23 years old and only used cocaine for a few months.
He said his children and grandchild know about his prior drug use. He said he thought they knew at the time because he was behind on his bills. His daughter (Ms TW) approached the Applicant in about 2022 or 2023 and told him to get his life straight. His granddaughter (Ms OW) also told the Applicant at about the same time that she didn't want to see him anymore because he was using drugs. His stepson (Mr BW) also told him to stop using drugs, but the Applicant resisted this approach and told Mr BW it was 'none of his business.'
Later in his cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that he probably started using illicit substances again in 2022 rather than 2023. He agreed that resuming his drug use hurt his family at the time. The Applicant said he now has a strategy in place to stop himself from using drugs. He said he would socialise with other people and 'get on with his life.' He plans to go to church and agreed he might have to attend AA sessions in the future. The Applicant was confident he could abstain from drug use this time around. He is now motivated for his family's sake to avoid relapsing.

[42]

Ms TW is the Applicant's stepdaughter, although she considers the Applicant to be her father. She first met the Applicant when she was 12 years old. She is now 55 years of age, so the Applicant has been an important part of her life for all of those years. She would see him three to four times a week and they would speak almost every day.
When the Applicant was in prison, they maintained weekly phone calls. Now the Applicant is in immigration detention they speak every day. Her daughter (Ms OW) moved out of home three years ago to attend university in Sydney. Ms TW said that since her daughter was born, she has had a very close bond with the Applicant.
Ms TW has currently assumed caring responsibilities for her brother (Mr BW). Her brother has severe agoraphobia. Mr BW and the Applicant have resided together for twenty years. Ms TW now has to do Mr BW's shopping and take him to his appointments. She speaks to Mr BW every day on the phone. Ms TW said that her brother misses the Applicant.
Ms TW said the Applicant's absence has had a very big impact on her. She is currently recovering from a permanent workplace injury. Ms TW has undergone surgeries and will have further surgeries in the future. She said if the Applicant were deported, it would have an enormous impact on her. Her life would have to stay on hold and, psychologically, the thought of her losing her father would be indescribable. She is also concerned about the Applicant's health if he were deported.
She doesn't know where the Applicant would live if he had to return to New Zealand. She would have to take on the Applicant's role in looking after her brother. She feels she would lose that emotional connection with her father, and the burden would fall on her to care for her brother. Ms TW has never been apart from the Applicant. He has been there for her since she was 12 years old.
Ms TW is aware of the Applicant's offending. She understood his offending involved trafficking a large sum of marijuana. The Applicant told her the truth about his offending when he was remanded by the Northern Territory police. She is aware that he has consumed illicit drugs in the past.
Ms TW said she saw some changes in the Applicant in 2022, and she confronted him about that. She understood that he had never used drugs before that time, and she has never seen any drug use before then. She assumed he consumed marijuana, but it was not something they really talked about.
She tried to support him in 2022, as that was about the time he was diagnosed with his tumour. She noticed he has had a pattern of drinking and drug-taking which unfortunately led to the situation the Applicant finds himself in today. She is aware that the Applicant was convicted about twenty-two years ago for further offending involving marijuana. Ms TW is aware that he may have some unpaid fines, and that he failed to declare his convictions when he returned to Australia on two occasions.
Ms TW said she has every confidence that if the Applicant is released into the community he wouldn't relapse. She said the Applicant is now finally acknowledging what he has done to his family and to the community.

[55]

The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submissions and agree that the Applicant's conduct can be regarded as very serious. The Applicant's offending involved the cross-border importation of 52 kgs of cannabis. The sentencing judge noted that amount is a very significant quantity of cannabis.[65] The Applicant's role was that of a courier, and as the sentencing judge noted, couriers will also be subjected to condign punishment because without their involvement the illicit drug trade could not flourish.[66] The Applicant also fell to be sentenced for his possession of $41,300 in cash at the time of his arrest.[67]
The Tribunal has had regard to the other matters at paragraph 8.1.1(1) as follows.
The sentence imposed (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c)): The maximum penalties for the offences was 14 years and 25 years respectively. His Honour held that the Applicant must serve a non-parole period (as opposed to a suspended sentence) having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending. His Honour also had regard to the same considerations (including the level of criminality and the need for punishment and deterrence) when fixing the head sentence.[68] His Honour noted that the significance of general deterrence, community protection, punishment and denunciation are objectives in sentencing for this type of offending.[69] The Applicant's head sentence of four years six months imprisonment reflects the gravity of the Applicant's offending. The Tribunal has had regard to this sentence when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct.
Impact of the offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d)): The sentencing judge took into account the 'deleterious impact' the supply of large quantities of cannabis has on the community.[70] His Honour also took into account the harm which would have been caused by the Applicant's offending.[71] There can be no dispute that the distribution of illicit drugs in the community causes a great deal of physical, psychological, social and economic harm to its users, their families and the community in general. The Tribunal has taken the impact of the Applicant's offending into account.
Frequency of offending and increasing seriousness (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e)): The Applicant was sentenced in January 2002 for possession of a prohibited drug namely 186 grams of cannabis.[72] Thereafter he was sentenced in December 2003 for the supply of 13.85 kgs of cannabis.[73] The Applicant was alleged to have been involved in the transportation of those drugs from Adelaide to Sydney.[74] The next set of offending occurred in 2023 when he was convicted of transporting 52 kgs of cannabis from South Australia to Northern Territory. Although there was a twenty-year gap in offending, the Applicant's later offending has markedly increased in seriousness when regard is had to the quantities of cannabis involved. The offending cannot be described as 'frequent' but has increased in seriousness and the Tribunal has taken this into account.
Cumulative effect of repeated offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f)): The Tribunal has had regard to the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending. The Applicant has been previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment for transporting cannabis across borders. Although the Tribunal has noted there was a twenty-year gap in offending, he didn't fall to be sentenced as someone without a relevant criminal history unlike his co-offenders SR and JM. The Tribunal considers that the presence of relevant priors aggravates the Applicant's conduct in circumstances where he had already been sentenced to gaol for similar offending but was not deterred in committing further offending in a much greater magnitude.
Provided false or misleading information (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g)): The Applicant failed to declare his criminal convictions on two incoming passenger cards on 20 January 2018 and 30 April 2018.[75] On each of those occasions, the Applicant had criminal convictions as a result of his sentences in the Local Court of New South Wales in 2002 and in 2003. The Applicant stated in a letter to the Department that he mistakenly believed that his criminal convictions did not apply after 10 years.[76] In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant stated that he may have received assistance from a fellow passenger at the time but can't be sure. He said he was under stress due to his family circumstances in New Zealand at the time and wasn't thinking straight. The Applicant was remorseful to the Tribunal when cross-examined on this matter. The Tribunal has had regard to these false declarations but on balance gives it very limited weight given the age of the matter and the Applicant's explanation.
Formal warning (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h)), or an offence committed overseas (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(i)): There is no evidence that any of these factors are relevant to the Applicant's circumstances.
The Tribunal has considered the factors identified at paragraph 8.1.1(1) where relevant to the Applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's offending can be properly regarded as very serious. This finding weighs heavily against the Applicant.

[67]

A parole report was prepared by Northern Territory Community Corrections ahead of the Applicant's eligibility for parole on 30 June 2025.[85] The report detailed the Applicant's background, substance misuse and treatment history, programs and courses he has engaged in, relevant attitudes, and community and victim considerations. A summary of this report follows.
The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 1978 as a 20-year-old.[86] He has predominately resided in South Australia since his arrival but has also spent time in New South Wales and Western Australia.[87]
The Applicant described a troubled upbringing in New Zealand.[88] He left school at Year 10.[89] He reported struggling at school and dropped out to commence work doing general maintenance on railways.[90]
The Applicant was consistently employed as a truck driver but also worked in other industries such as general maintenance, and cabinet making.[91]
The Applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident which led to a permanent impairment in his left arm.[92] He was also diagnosed with a benign tumour behind his right eye.[93] The Applicant has suffered from a heart blockage and had triple bypass surgery in February 2025. He was transported from Darwin Correctional Centre to Adelaide for the surgery and returned to the Darwin Correctional Centre on 27 March 2025.[94]
He reported to parole officers that he commenced consuming alcohol and cannabis at approximately 12 years of age, and was using cannabis, methamphetamines, and amphetamines from a young age.[95] He has been addicted to drugs 'on and off' throughout his life, but stated to the parole officer in April 2025 that he last used any kind of drugs three years ago.[96]
Whilst on remand in Darwin, he participated in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program with the Prison in Reach Program.[97] This program was completed on 3 October 2023.[98] He also engaged with telephone counselling with Catholic Care.[99] He successfully completed a residential treatment program in South Australia approximately 20 years ago.[100]
The Applicant told the officer that he committed the current offending for financial benefit, stating that at the time he was behind on his bills and owed debt.[101] He stated that this is no longer an issue for him due to the financial support from his family, and intends on applying for a disability pension upon release.[102] According to prison records the Applicant displayed 'good institutional compliance', is at a low-restricted security rating, and was employed as a skilled worker whilst in prison.[103]
The officer notes that the Applicant had insight into his offending, but also appeared to display 'somewhat of a sarcastic outlook on his crimes' by stating that "he needed the money" and "who doesn't think about it."[104] The officer found these attitudes concerning.[105] The officer noted that the Applicant's family is his primary focus, and he wants to remain offence free.[106] The Applicant was seeking to have his parole transferred to South Australia where he has resided for the majority of his adult life, owns property and has family support.[107]
The Applicant was assessed as a 'high-risk offender'.[108] The officer noted the Applicant has demonstrated insight into his offending, although his attitude raises some concerns.[109] The officer stated the Applicant requires close monitoring due to his previous substance use, his current health concerns, his attitude towards his offending and financial status, as he stated he participated in the offending for financial gain.[110]
The officer recommended the Parole Board defer consideration of the Applicant's release for two months to await the outcome of his parole transfer application to South Australia.[111]
On 14 April 2025, the Northern Territory Parole Board accepted the recommendations of this report and deferred consideration of the Applicant's parole to allow time for his parole transfer application to be assessed.[112]

[70]

The Applicant attended the Gambling Addiction Treatment Services ('GATS') as part of his parole conditions that were set in 2004.[118] He was required to complete the program over 12 months. However, the 'Termination Summary' dated 1 September 2004 reported the Applicant attended and completed the intensive treatment program, but his attendance at weekly aftercare relapse prevention sessions was reported to be 'sporadic'.[119] It was noted that the Applicant believed that the sessions were of little benefit to him, and that he felt under so much pressure on managing his limited funds that he relapsed and used the pokies.[120] He reported feeling unsupported by GATS and therefore sought assistance from other programs to help him get back on track.[121] The case notes for this period of parole report that the Applicant had begun volunteer work in the local area and finds it enjoyable.[122]
The Applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he completed the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program which comprised of eight sessions with each session lasting for one and a half hours. The Tribunal otherwise does not have evidence before it of the content of that program but accepts the Applicant's evidence that he completed the program and that it was of benefit to him.
The Applicant has also sought to rely on three character references that were submitted to the Parole Board in 2025.[123] They were written by his stepdaughter (Ms TW), his stepson (Mr BW) and his granddaughter (Ms OW). Each of the letters speak of the Applicant's remorse, and the Applicant's resolve not to reoffend. The Applicant also relied on a psychological report prepared by Mr BW's psychologist which details Mr BW's psychological conditions and his need for continued support from the Applicant.[124]
The Respondent has submitted that the Applicant's risk of re-offending remains unacceptable.[125] It is noted the Applicant has a relevant prior conviction, has displayed a lack of insight, and has not completed any meaningful alcohol or drug rehabilitation aside from a residential program twenty years ago.[126]
The Tribunal has considered the factors at paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. The Tribunal has had regard to the information and evidence on risk, and evidence of rehabilitation achieved at the time of the decision. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is moderate. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant engaged in serious offending in 2003 and did not offend again until 2023. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant had a 20-year period in the community where he did not reoffend. Balanced against this finding however is the very serious and repeated nature of the Applicant's offending. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he relapsed into drug use again in about 2022 or 2023 and was under financial pressure at the time due to unpaid bills and taxes. He acknowledged that he made a mistake in agreeing to accept $4,000 to transport cannabis across borders and agreed that the risk was not worth it. He said he knows to reach out to his family for support and would not reoffend in the future stating he was 'too old' to keep reoffending. The Tribunal notes however the Applicant was 64 years old when he committed these recent offences. His age at the time of his offending did not deter him from engaging in serious criminal activity.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has strong family support in South Australia. If he were released into the community, he would resume living in the family home with his stepson. He told the Tribunal he had work lined up as a courier driver and would be able to obtain other employment in the meantime. The Applicant told the Tribunal he was addicted to pokies prior to his arrest. The parole report prepared in April 2025 described the Applicant as a 'high risk offender' but the Tribunal notes that his release was subsequently recommended in a supplementary report in June 2025.
The Tribunal notes his attendance at the GATS program, which was aimed at addressing his gambling addiction, was described as sporadic. He has completed an alcohol and drug program and residential rehabilitation program in the past, but there is an absence of any future rehabilitation or counselling aimed at targeting and preventing relapse if he were released into the community. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant would be subject to parole conditions until 29 September 2027, which require him to submit to random drug testing, participate in any counselling or treatment as required, and not possess or abuse a dangerous drug.[127]
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.[128] The Tribunal considers that the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated is so serious that any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable. Transporting large amounts of cannabis across borders is a very serious offence and if those drugs were distributed within the community, it could cause very serious harm to the Australian community. Although the Applicant's risk is moderated by the factors identified above, the Tribunal finds that any risk the conduct may be repeated is unacceptable, especially in circumstances where he has already offended in a similar manner.

[79]

The Applicant's immediate family members have been considered under paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110. Ms TW gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and described her incredibly close bond with the Applicant as the Applicant has been in her life since she was 12 years old. She described the burden she has carried in the Applicant's absence of caring for her brother who requires full-time ongoing care given his mental health difficulties. She told the Tribunal she is dealing with a serious workplace injury for which she has required surgery and will require further surgeries in the future. The Applicant's absence means that she has to care for herself as a result of this ongoing treatment, as well as managing the ongoing full-time care of her brother. She told the Tribunal that the Applicant was Mr BW's full-time carer in the past and she would hope that the Applicant could return to the community and return to the family home to commence caring and supporting her brother. Ms TW told the Tribunal she feels significantly impacted by the Applicant's absence and misses that daily in-person contact with the Applicant. She can't imagine a life without the Applicant's presence and said his absence would be indescribable.
Ms OW also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal regarding her close relationship with the Applicant. Although she now resides in Sydney, she does return to South Australia two to three times a year and did visit the Applicant when he was in South Australia for his heart surgery. She told the Tribunal about her plans for the Applicant to live with her in Sydney in the future to give him a fresh start, and to take him away from any anti-social acquaintances. This plan is not developed as yet because the Applicant needs to complete his parole in South Australia first, but Ms OW said she hoped the Applicant would consider relocating in the future.
Mr BW provided a letter in support of the Applicant to the Parole Board and the Tribunal has taken this into account. The Tribunal has had regard to this letter and the psychological report provided by Mr BW's psychologist. It is clear from these materials that the Applicant's absence has had a profoundly negative impact on Mr BW. He said in his letter that the Applicant's return is not only important for his mental and physical health but for the overall stability of his family.[130] The Applicant's absence was described by Mr BW as a 'huge setback to say the least' not only to him but also to his sister on whom he is completely dependent now. He said that his sister's life has been put on hold 'and she is getting tired. We need Dad home.'[131]
There is no written material from Mr SK, though the Applicant referred to him in his personal circumstances form he submitted to the Department.[132] The Tribunal accepts that Mr SK would be impacted by a non-revocation decision as a close family member.
The Tribunal has had regard to the impact of a non-revocation decision on the Applicant's immediate family members. The Tribunal accepts that they will be negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Tribunal has had particular regard to the evidence of Ms TW who has now assumed the caring responsibilities of her brother. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's absence has had a huge toll on her, as well as his other family members, and has taken this into account. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's immediate family members will be negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision and gives this significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the factors at paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110. The Applicant has established other ties to the Australian community through his lengthy employment history and due to the fact he has resided in Australia since 1978. The Tribunal spent time contributing positively to the Australian community before his first drug offence in 2002. He stepped in and raised his ex-partner's children, assuming an important role as a father and support system in their lives. He maintained steady employment as a truck driver, in factories, and as a shopfitter before becoming injured. He has lived in various places across Australia and the Tribunal accepts he has developed ties within those communities.[133] In his written statement to the Tribunal, the Applicant said he has been actively involved in the Stables Christian Centre, coached young adults at the Onkaparinga Rugby Club and took part in school cultural events at O'Sullivan Beach Primary School.[134] The Applicant also told the Tribunal he has nephews in Sydney. The Tribunal has taken these ties into account.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has resided in Australia for the majority of his adult life, and as a 67-year-old, has extremely strong family and social ties to the Australian community. The Tribunal has taken the considerations identified under paragraph 8.3(2) into account and has afforded it significant weight in the Applicant's favour.

[85]

(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. > > (2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind: > > a) acts of family violence; or > > b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage; > > c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect; > > d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or > > e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or > > f) worker exploitation. > > (3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

[86]

This primary consideration requires decision-makers to consider the expectations of the Australian community as articulated by the Australian Government, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case. This 'deemed community expectation' must be understood and applied normatively.[135]
In this case the Applicant has breached the community's expectations by offending in a very serious manner. He transported 52 kgs of cannabis across borders and was also found in possession of a large amount of cash. Had the delivery not been intercepted, the distribution of 52 kgs of cannabis into the community would have had a devastating impact.
The Applicant previously committed a very similar offence some twenty years ago when he attempted to transport 13 kgs of cannabis interstate. The Applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for that offending with a non-parole period of four months. That sentence should have acted as a deterrent to the Applicant that this type of behaviour results in condign punishment and time away from his family and loved ones. The Applicant agreed to transport the cannabis in the later offending for financial gain and again failed to appreciate the impact that his offending would have on the community, his family and loved ones. It is accepted that the Applicant suffered a relapse into drug use at the time and was under financial strain, but this does not excuse the behaviour.
The Australian community would expect that a person who has committed the offences the Applicant has to not continue to hold a visa. Although the offending is not captured by any of the categories identified at paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction, there is no question that drug offending of that magnitude is very serious. The Tribunal has taken into account paragraph 8.5(3) and noted that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

[89]

Paragraph 9.1(1) provides that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198, liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section. This other consideration then considers non-citizens who are covered by a protection finding (as defined in s 197C of the Act), and those who are not.
Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by a non-citizen who is not covered by a protection finding. The Direction provides that where such claims are raised, they must be considered.
The Applicant is not covered by a protection finding. The Applicant has not raised any claims relevant to this consideration nor are there any claims apparent in the materials before the Tribunal.
The Applicant would be subject to the intended legal consequences of a non-revocation decision. That is, he would be liable to be detained pending his removal. He would also be prohibited from applying for another visa (except a protection visa) and may be subject to periods of exclusion and special return criteria as a result of certain provisions of the Act.[136] It has been held in Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that those consequences follow as a matter of statutory construction, so long as the person has the status of an unlawful non-citizen.[137]
The Tribunal has taken into account the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision on the Applicant. It is accepted that he would be liable for removal from Australia and would be subject to the prohibitions and exclusions set out in the Act. It is accepted that those consequences would impact the Applicant significantly as a person who has spent the majority of his life in Australia and has established extremely close family and social ties. The Tribunal has decided to afford this other consideration moderate weight in the Applicant's favour given the significance of the legal consequences of the non-revocation decision upon the Applicant. However, the Tribunal considers that the weight afforded to primary consideration one outweighs the weight afforded to this other consideration given the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending.

[93]

The Applicant currently takes a range of medications for his heart condition.[139] He also takes anti-depressant medication.[140] He takes paracetamol and other pain relief when required to manage his pain and headaches.[141]
The Respondent contends that it is unclear to what extent these medical issues require ongoing treatment.[142] It is contended that in any event any impediments would be short-term because there are no language or cultural barriers, and the Applicant would have access to the same social, medical and economic support of other citizens of New Zealand, and he has some family support in New Zealand.[143]
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's age and poor health is an impediment to his removal in that he has received ongoing care and management of his various medical conditions whilst in Australia over an extended period of time. The Tribunal notes the Applicant has had major surgery in the past including a triple heart bypass. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal which would support a finding that the Applicant would not be able to receive the same level of social, medical and/or economic support in New Zealand. His health conditions are currently being managed in immigration detention and it is not apparent on the materials that he requires any specialised medical attention that he could not obtain in New Zealand. Indeed, the supports he is likely to receive in New Zealand are likely to be of a similar kind that is available in Australia.[144] It is accepted that the Applicant would face some practical, financial and emotional difficulties if removed to New Zealand. The Applicant has not resided in New Zealand since the age of 20, though he has made return visits, the most recent of these was in 2018.[145] He has family members who reside in New Zealand, and he has already been in contact with a cousin with whom he has discussed the possibility of accommodation and employment. It is accepted that the Applicant's removal from Australia would have a significant emotional impact on the Applicant as he would be physically separated from his adult children and grandchild. The Tribunal has taken into account the difficult circumstances of his immediate family members, including his daughter Ms TW and her ongoing medical issues, and especially Mr BW who has been diagnosed with various mental health conditions, and whom requires full-time care. It is accepted that Mr BW would be unable to visit the Applicant in New Zealand due to his mental health conditions, and this would severely impact the Applicant's emotional connection to him given the Applicant used to be his full-time carer. It is accepted the Applicant would be emotionally impacted by knowing that his daughter has to remain the full-time carer for her brother, even in the face of her own health challenges.
Having considered all of these matters, the Tribunal finds that this other consideration ought to weigh in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. The Tribunal has decided to afford this other consideration significant weight in the Applicant's favour given his age, poor health and the significant emotional impediments he would face if removed from Australia.
The Tribunal has had regard to the terms of the Direction which provide that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.[146] In this case, the Tribunal has decided that greater weight should be afforded to primary consideration one given the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending. The weight afforded to primary consideration one outweighs the weight afforded to this other consideration.

[96]

The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has failed the character test according to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. This means the Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as a basis to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
The issue the Tribunal therefore needs to decide is whether it is satisfied there is another reason why the original cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In determining this question, the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's representations, and the considerations and factors set out in Direction 110. The Tribunal is required to carry out an evaluative exercise of weighing and balancing the various considerations in order to determine whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.[147]
The Tribunal has determined that primary consideration one weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. Primary consideration five has also been afforded heavy weight against revocation.
In the Applicant's favour is primary consideration three which has been afforded significant weight, as well as other considerations one and two which have been afforded moderate and significant weight respectively. Primary considerations two and four and other consideration three weighs neutrally in the balancing exercise.
The Tribunal has afforded greater weight to primary consideration one given the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending.[148] The Tribunal has afforded greater weight to the primary considerations than the other considerations.[149]
The Tribunal has had regard to the principles at paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110. In the Applicant's case, he engaged in very serious drug offending in 2023. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant previously engaged in similar offending some twenty years ago and received a term of imprisonment. The Applicant wasn't deterred from engaging in similar offending for financial gain and took the significant risk in transporting 52 kgs of cannabis. Despite the Applicant's assurances that he wouldn't offend again, the Tribunal notes the Applicant was 64 years of age when he committed these recent offences. This demonstrates that despite his age and maturity he was still willing to engage in very serious offending for a financial benefit.
The strong countervailing considerations such as the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia is not sufficient to justify revoking the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and a non-citizen who has engaged in serious criminal conduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. As mentioned above the Tribunal has afforded greater weight to the protection of the Australian community given the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending.
Having weighed the primary and other considerations relevant to the Applicant's case, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (105 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (5)

Mclean and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 209 (17 February 2026)