DTR21 v Minister for Immigration, citizenship, Migrant Services &... | Case summary

(a) The Applicant; > > (b) Te Arapaparahi, his younger sister; and > > (c) Raumati Kohiti, his mother.

DTR21 v Minister for Immigration, citizenship, Migrant Services &... | Case summary | Zoe

[15]

(a) 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. > > (b) The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. > > (c) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. > > (d) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel non-citizens visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (e) 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. > > (f) 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 revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (g) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

[28]

Details of the Applicant's offending before the Tribunal are contained in the Check Results Report contained in the G documents and the transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates' Court of Queensland at Beenleigh on 6 February 2025.[6] Those details are also provided in a document prepared by the Queensland Police being a "Sentencing Schedule".[7] In cross examination the applicant was asked to read that document in its entirety, which he did. He then admitted that at the hearing in the Magistrates' Court of Queensland he pled guilty to the facts in that document.
The details of the applicant's offending as recounted by the sentencing Magistrate are probably the most accurate account available to the Tribunal. He had the benefit of viewing CCTV footage of the incidents concerned as well as other material before him.
The two victims were at a hotel in its smoking area in the early hours of the morning on 3 August 2024. Apparently, they were engaged in conversation. The applicant approached them and asked for a cigarette. The male victim declined the request. This resulted in what was described by the Magistrate as a verbal exchange occurring. This conversation apparently took place over some time.
Suddenly, and without provocation or warning, the applicant punched the male victim in the right side of the face and then struck the female victim, as he described it, "in the process at that time."
The applicant then punched the male victim a further seven times in the face, back of the head and neck causing his victim to fall to the ground. Once the victim was on the ground the applicant continued to punch him whilst maintaining a position on top. The female victim attempted to wrestle with the applicant in an endeavour to get him off the male victim. It appears the applicant lost his footing briefly. However, once he regained his footing, he then proceeded to punch the male victim a further five times, rendering him unconscious. The applicant then kicked the male victim once in the back of the neck before the female victim was able to confront the applicant and force him to the ground. It appears that the applicant objected to this move by the female victim and then grabbed her by the hair and then flung the back of her head into the concrete floor. She continued to struggle with the applicant, and he then punched her in the head and continued to pull her hair.
Following his engagement with the female victim the applicant then returned and devoted his attention to the male victim and punched him a final time in the head whilst he was still unconscious. This prompted the female victim to again try to intervene. The applicant's response was to choke her by grabbing her tightly around the throat before hotel security staff intervened.
The hotel security staff removed the applicant from the venue. The male victim remained unconscious on the ground for approximately four minutes in a pool of his own blood from a cut to his mouth and nose.
Subsequently, the male victim was conveyed to Logan Hospital. An initial medical assessment indicated a fractured nose, fractured upper jaw, caused by a displaced tooth and soft tissue injuries to his face, neck and torso. He was then booked in for facial reconstructive surgery at the PA Hospital once his swelling had subsided.[8] There were several photographs in evidence before the Tribunal that apparently were taken by investigating police and produced to the Tribunal in response to a summons directed to that organisation. Those photographs were of both victims. Those photos are confronting.
There was a short victim impact statement in evidence before the Tribunal from the male victim which provided more details of the injuries he suffered, not to mention the other effects upon him arising from the applicant's offences committed against him.[9] Additionally, he stated because of his broken nose he has an air pocket in his nose caused by fractured bone cartilage. A displaced tooth has also impacted his nasal cavity. He requires plastic surgery on his bottom lip. This is not surprising given that the graphic photographs and evidence revealed that he did sustain a badly lacerated lip in the incident. He also required what he described as "extreme dental surgery" because his teeth were forced upward into his lower maxilla. This was also verified by the photos that were in evidence which do reveal that his teeth were significantly displaced as he mentioned in his victim impact statement. Understandably, the male victim experienced significant pain and suffering.
Following the incident, the male victim was unable to work for over three weeks. This is again, hardly surprising.
In terms of assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending it is considered to be self-evident, from the description provided above, that it can only be categorised as very serious. Frankly appalling and deplorable. It is also appropriate to briefly mention some of the sentencing Magistrate's conclusions about the applicant's offending, with which the Tribunal completely agrees.
The sentencing Magistrate stated that as an experienced judicial officer, bearing in mind that he had the benefit of viewing CCTV footage, he found it rather confronting. He described the footage as amongst some of the most confronting that one could see in the context of offences that frequently occur at hotels. He accepted the prosecution submissions that it was an extreme example of gratuitous violence. It was also accepted by him that such offending was callous and cowardly. Additionally, he described it as quite a prolonged attack which continued whilst the victim was on the ground unconscious. In his words, "It's outrageous. Absolutely outrageous". Later in his reasons he reiterated that he had the advantage of viewing the CCTV footage of the incidents, that it was confronting for him to observe, and it also must have been confronting to the victims of the assault.
The Magistrate also repeated that the attack was unprovoked, and it was gratuitous. Therefore, he concluded it was not at the lower end of seriousness for that type of offending. He repeated what is often said that generally in courts, sentences of imprisonment are the last resort. However, he emphasised that is not the case where there is actual violence. He noted, having accepted a submission by the prosecution, that it is not unusual regrettably for this type of gratuitous violence, particularly in licensed establishments for actual custodial orders to be imposed. He considered that sentences of imprisonment were both justified and appropriate. This is not withstanding submissions made on behalf of the applicant at the plea hearing. This is all hardly surprisingly given the circumstances of the applicant's offending as has been described.
Whilst the sentencing Magistrate's reasons for sentence do not make such detailed conclusions about the applicant's offending against the female victim there are some observations that should be made given what is known, and in evidence before the Tribunal. The applicant's offending against the female victim is completely and utterly appalling and totally unacceptable. Grabbing a woman by the hair and flinging the back of her head into the concrete floor is nothing short of outrageous. As if that wasn't enough, choking her tightly around the neck, was not only deplorable, unwarranted and cowardly, but it also had the potential to inflict extraordinarily serious injuries upon his victim. It should be recalled that the applicant is a comparatively fit young man who clearly was in a position of substantial physical ascendancy over his female victim. As already noted, photographs taken by the police of the female victim were before the Tribunal. The marks or grazes on her neck are extremely confronting. How a man could resort to the infliction of such injuries on a woman defies belief.
Finally, the sentencing Magistrate emphasised that the community denounces the sort of conduct in which the applicant was involved. Tribunal completely agrees with those sentiments.
The male victim also explained, understandably, how the injuries he suffered also affected his mental health. He stated being unable to be around crowds without suffering a panic attack. This has significantly reduced his ability to engage in activities with his children such as taking them to theme parks, football games, picnics and so on. The male victim also explained that he prefers not to go to dinner with friends and family at local licensed premises. Further difficulties arising from the injuries he has suffered include the effects it has had on his relationship with his partner, his children, friends and family. It was also mentioned by him that he harbours a great deal of anger which has caused friction in his interpersonal relationships. He stated that he requires ongoing treatment for social anxiety and depression.
The Tribunal concludes that the applicant's offending can only be described as extremely serious indeed. Apart from the fact that it is self-evident from the description outlined above, it is also very serious offending that is captured by the language of several paragraphs of 8.1.1 of Direction 110.
The applicant committed violent crimes within the meaning of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 110.
Additionally, the applicant's offending against the female victim were crimes of a violent nature against a woman as contemplated by the language used in paragraph 8.1.1(a)(ii) of Direction 110.
Accordingly, given that the applicant's offending was very serious indeed it must weigh heavily against the applicant.

[30]

Under paragraph 8.1.1(d) of Direction 110 the Tribunal is required to consider the impact of the offending on any victims, where information in this regard is available and procedural fairness has been given to the applicant.
The impact of the applicant's offending on his victims has already been canvassed above in the section headed "The applicant's offending". The impact has been recorded in the Transcript of Proceedings before the Magistrates' Court of Queensland on 6 February 2025.[10] Further details are also contained in the photographs taken by the investigating police of both victims[11] and the male victim's victim impact statement.[12]
At the hearing before the sentencing Magistrate the applicant was represented by counsel. No doubt the victim impact statement of the male victim would have been provided to his counsel prior to the plea hearing. Accordingly, counsel could have made any submissions on the question of impact on his victims as they may have been advised. The documents outlining the impact on the applicant's victims which have already been referred to, were also produced to him in anticipation of the hearing of this matter before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness concerning this question.
Apart from referring to and repeating the earlier observations about the impact of the applicant's offending on his victims, the Tribunal would reiterate that such effect was clearly widespread and traumatic. One can only speculate, but it appears, certainly with respect to the male victim, that he has had significant ongoing issues arising from what occurred to him because of the applicant's offending. It cannot and should not be underestimated.
The victim impact statement from the male victim that was in evidence for the Tribunal only comprised one page. It appears that it was longer and that all pages were before the sentencing Magistrate. He repeated a sentence from that victim impact statement which stated as follows: "Unable to provide estimated monetary value of this impact but I have received legal advice they could cost between $50,000-$100,000." There seems no reason to dispute this estimate on the part of the victim, it is a significant impact as contemplated by this paragraph of Direction 110.

[37]

Paragraph 8.1.1(2) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to, amongst other things, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, it seems more probable than not, will be of a similar nature to that which occurred on 3 August 2024 for which he was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If he were to reoffend in the way that he did for which he was most recently sentenced, there must be a risk of physical injury to the applicant's victims, psychological or mental health ramifications and financial harm to his victims, as was the case with the male victim of his most recent offending. It will be recalled that the male victim was unable to work for three weeks after the assault committed on him. Another dimension of the financial harm arises from the necessity for victims to seek medical attention and treatment, which one way or the other will have to be paid for. This will either be by the taxpayer through the application of resources from the public healthcare system, private health insurers, if the victims are privately insured, or in some cases out of the victim's pocket because of "gap payments" that have to be made even by fully insured private patients.
Another category of harm to the Australian community which should not be underestimated arises from the application of the resources of police, prosecutorial authorities and correctional agencies. At the end of the day these resources will be diverted. One can only speculate if such diversion did not occur whether they could be more productively or effectively applied. It is well-known that the costs to the taxpayer of keeping a person in custody are extremely expensive.
In the context of harm, if the applicant were to reoffend along the lines of his most recent offending, reference should also be made to the potential demands on the criminal compensation schemes accessible by victims of crime throughout Australia's states and territories. This is another significant financial burden that is imposed on the taxpayer because of criminal offending.
One should observe that the likelihood of such harm, as described, will be significantly greater if the applicant does not totally abstain from the consumption of alcohol. The sentencing Magistrate described the applicant as having an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. If the applicant relapses into alcohol consumption it must be a significantly greater risk of him reoffending in an intemperate or hot-headed moment leading to the potential for harm to be caused as described.

[38]

The applicant has in a variety of ways expressed remorse for his offending. Mr Stoker, who is a clinical psychologist was retained by his criminal lawyers to represent him at the hearing in the Magistrates' Court at Beenleigh and in his report recorded him as being remorseful for his offending.
At the plea hearing before the Magistrates' court the sentencing Magistrate recorded the applicant as being remorseful. He also recorded him in his letter of apology to the male victim as providing a genuine apology in relation to his offending against him.
An early guilty plea and his election to submit to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court to hear and determine the charges, together with his efforts to have the matters dealt with as soon as he possibly could, are also considered to be indicative of some level of remorse on his part, which is acknowledged.
When in the witness box on several occasions, the applicant expressed deep remorse for the assaults that he had committed on his male and female victims. He stated that he had learned from his mistakes.
Some of the other evidence before the Tribunal concerning the applicant's remorse and insight into his offending is problematic.
In some of the documentary material, including more recent statements made by the applicant, he has made comments concerning his offending that are somewhat puzzling and provide an explanation, or some personal view of his offending which was certainly not put to the sentencing Magistrate in the Magistrates' Court of Queensland at Beenleigh on 6 February 2025, where he was represented by clearly experienced counsel who had taken extensive instructions in preparation for the plea made on the applicant's behalf. There is also an inconsistency in the version of events between some of those statements.
There was in evidence an undated handwritten letter from the applicant. That letter has already been referred to.[13] It covers a variety of subjects. In one paragraph the applicant stated the following concerning his offending for which he was most recently convicted. It is worth reproducing that paragraph in full. It states as follows:

[56]

The second undated handwritten letter from the applicant contained no reference to him having been hit on the head by the male victim (or for that matter any victim) with a bottle. (In the witness box he gave yet another version saying that he was struck with a bottle to his head by the female victim. More will be said about this a little later in this section of these reasons.) This, as it is self-evident, is completely inconsistent with the references in the first undated handwritten letter and in his response to question 10 of the Personal Circumstances Form which do refer to him having been struck by a victim with a bottle. The failure to mention being hit on the head by a bottle in the second undated handwritten letter, apart from being inconsistent with the earlier statements, is very difficult to comprehend and makes the Tribunal consider such an allegation with some extreme scepticism.
There are other inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts of his offending which also warrant reference on the question of the applicant's remorse and insight into his offending.
In some of those extracts from the applicant's handwritten letters and the answer to question 10 of the Personal Circumstances Form, the applicant indicates that whilst he was drinking on the night of his offending he would not be described as either "drunken", that he was in control of his faculties to a reasonable agree and that when he goes out, he almost never drinks.
Also, in evidence for the Tribunal was, as noted above, a report prepared by a clinical psychologist Mr Stoker, after he had conducted a psychological assessment on the applicant by videolink on 31 January 2025.[18] That report was before the sentencing Magistrate. Parts of it were referred to in his reasons. In the part of his report headed "Psychological Issues" Mr Stoker recorded several things. He reported the applicant as being remorseful for his offending. He also stated that the applicant was unsure about what triggered the level of anger he displayed on the night of the offending. He reported to Mr Stoker that he was highly intoxicated, had been drinking prior to entering the hotel and continued drinking there for a few hours prior to the offending. He was also using cannabis. Mr Stoker also expressed the opinion that the applicant's offending was a combination of him having very poor psychological health, due to factors previously outlined in his report (being in his early development, psychological history personal history and psychological issues) and alcohol abuse.
The reference to the applicant reporting that he was highly intoxicated, had been drinking prior to entering the hotel and continued drinking there for a few hours prior to the offending is wholly inconsistent with the representations made in the explanation of his offending given in his first undated handwritten letter, the answer to question 10 in the Personal Circumstances Form and the explanation for his offending contained in the second undated handwritten letter. He certainly did not in those documents remotely suggest that he was highly intoxicated, as he told Mr Stoker previously, or as was recorded by the sentencing Magistrate in his reasons. Quite the contrary; it is a glaring inconsistency.
Further, the explanation the applicant gave Mr Stoker that he was unsure what triggered the level of anger he displayed on the night of the offending is completely inconsistent with the subsequent statements made by him in the two undated handwritten letters and the answer to question 10 in the Personal Circumstances Form. If the explanation subsequently given in those documents was in fact the case, or otherwise truthful, one would have expected the applicant, well after the event when consulting an expert clinical psychologist who had been retained by his experienced solicitors, to undertake a psychological assessment and provide opinion in relation to his offending, clearly for the purposes of submitting to the court at his plea hearing, which the applicant well knew, to furnish Mr Stoker with accurate details of what he now says occurred on that night and in particular that he had received a threat from the male victim to stab him, that he was genuinely in fear of his life and had been struck over the head with a bottle. It was highly relevant to Mr Stoker undertaking the psychological assessment and providing an opinion in relation to his offending as requested. The Tribunal cannot accept that if the version of the events now recorded by the applicant in the documents concerned was in fact truthful that he did not tell an experienced clinical psychologist who had been retained to assist him make the best possible submissions at the subsequent hearing in the Magistrates' Court.
Further, on the question of the level of the applicant's intoxication on the night of his offending at the hotel the sentencing Magistrate has also recorded that the applicant reported he was highly intoxicated. The Magistrate also stated when making this observation, that to his mind, it was rather apparent from having viewed the CCTV footage that was before him. The Tribunal infers from the Magistrate's comments on the question of the applicant's level of intoxication that, it is more probable than not, that a submission was made by the applicant's counsel to that effect. The Tribunal has difficulty comprehending how the applicant could have given instructions to competent counsel acting on his behalf for the purposes of the plea hearing, if he knew that such a submission to the court was not correct. It would surely be highly relevant for the court to know that he was not highly intoxicated, as he now says in recent correspondence to the delegate, when he committed the offences concerned.
There are other inconsistencies in the material. Before the Magistrate and the Tribunal was a handwritten letter of apology from the applicant.[19] The sentencing Magistrate records that the applicant gave his sincerest apologies. He said, "My reaction was completely over boredom." He also said, "I was just as surprised by, as anyone else, by the unfortunate dilemma. I'm not a violent person at heart. I'm actually a hard-working young man who has put himself through more schooling to gain a better career. I've grown fairly hard life and I have been through a lot for someone at my age and I refused to use that as an excuse for my poor judgement and actions." "I am deeply sorry to your partner as well, she didn't deserve to be in that situation." "This is no one's fault but my own. I couldn't be more ashamed at my actions and of myself. My actions made me sick to my stomach when I recall what happened".
The contents of the letter of apology as recorded by the sentencing Magistrate are completely inconsistent with the explanations for his offending, to some extent given in mitigation, referred to in the two undated handwritten letters and the response to question 10 of the Personal Circumstances Form. This is not to mention his evidence to the same effect when he was in the witness box at the hearing of this application before the Tribunal. It seems inconceivable that if what really occurred was as described in his recent statements made to the delegate, or to the Tribunal, that he would write such an unreserved letter of apology to the victim in the terms that he did. Once again, this glaring inconsistency seems very difficult to comprehend.
No submission incorporating his subsequent version of events as expressed in his first undated letter, his response to question 10 of the Personal Circumstances Form, lodged with the respondent or as explained in his second undated letter, was made to the court as part of the applicant's plea. There was nothing in the sentencing Magistrate's reasons to indicate in any way that the applicant's life was under threat, and certainly not from the two victims of his violent assault on that evening. There was absolutely no reference in the transcript of the sentencing Magistrate's reasons, or any other documentation to the applicant being hit over the head with a bottle by the female victim, that he started to black out or that the male victim said he was going to stab him.
Assuming the applicant had received the threats that he now contends he did on the night of his offending from the male victim, if he had been hit over the head with a bottle and he genuinely believed he was going to be stabbed and possibly killed, whilst not excusing his offending, it is a powerful mitigating factor and provides some contextual explanation for what he did. If this were the case, one would have expected him to have informed the police in no uncertain terms that he had been threatened with his life. It should be recalled that making a threat to kill is a serious criminal offence in all Australian jurisdictions. Had he done so, it would have been recorded in a record of interview, had he been prepared to take part in one.[20] Further, no doubt had he done so, the police would have recorded it in the various documents they prepared with respect to his prosecution.
If such allegations had also been raised with the police, they would have, as they have a duty to do, investigated such facts which may be consistent with his innocence, including possibly the question of self-defence. Also, had the applicant informed the police he had been hit over the head with a bottle by any offender, almost inevitably, the police would have invited the applicant to submit to a forensic examination. If struck on the head with a bottle there is usually a high risk of the victim suffering significant lacerations or extreme bruising consistent with such an attack, as indeed the applicant contends, he suffered by reason of being struck with the bottle. It prompted him to seek medical attention from the Logan Hospital. This would have been powerful corroborative evidence of his allegations concerning being struck over the head with a bottle by the male victim.
When in the witness box the applicant was probed about being struck on the head by a bottle. Even that story changed during that evidence. Before the luncheon adjournment his evidence was that he was hit multiple times over the head with a bottle. He also said that one could see this in the video evidence. He also stated the video evidence revealed that his head was smashed up against a concrete wall. Then the applicant's evidence was that he woke up with concussion, lacerations and multiple scratches. Later in his evidence when asked a specific question by the Tribunal about how much force was used to strike him with the bottle to the head, his response was, "It was hard sir". He stated he attended the Logan Hospital for some kind of treatment. He reiterated that the incident where he was struck over the head with the bottle was part of the factual matrix consisting of his interactions with his male and female victim before the court and recorded in that CCTV footage presumably viewed by the sentencing Magistrate.
Both the cross examiner, and the Tribunal at this stage, informed the applicant that this was not what the Magistrate said. The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that he had admitted to the facts contained in the Sentencing Schedule previously put to him and he had not raised any question of threats to kill being made to him or being struck over the head with a bottle when he consulted Mr Stoker the clinical psychologist. He was advised by the Tribunal to carefully consider his evidence over the luncheon adjournment.
Following the resumption of the applicant's cross examination following the luncheon adjournment he was asked specifically if he continued to suggest that he was provoked on the night of his offending. He responded that he did, and he continued to believe that his explanation of what happened on that night was the factual truth. He stated that he did not press this explanation of the hearing before the Magistrates' Court as he "wanted to be able to get the plea of guilty through the Magistrates' court". A response to this in similar terms was repeated several times throughout his evidence.
The cross examiner repeated to the applicant that his suggestion of provocation did not seem credible. There was no record of it having been raised before the court or his psychologist and it was only first raised in statements made to the Department. They were inconsistent. The applicant repeated that the victim threatened him with a knife, and when he reacted to that he was struck over the head with a bottle.
Ms Tattersall then specifically put to the applicant that the inconsistency in his statements and court documents lead to an inference that he was not being truthful. He stated he understood that. Further, she said to him that it was relevant in two ways, firstly, with respect to his credibility, and secondly, whether his assertions can be accepted by the Tribunal that he has gained insight into, and remorse for his offending. His response was that he did not make these allegations as he thought it might detract from his plea and sentence. He then stated that he completely understood what the cross examiner was saying. The applicant then followed this comment with, "I was thinking that my lawyers at the time wanted to get me home to my family as soon as possible and get it over with."
Rather remarkably, the applicant then said that he was not saying the male victim was the person who hit him over the head with a bottle but that it was the female victim. This was the first time either in any written document or his oral evidence where he contended that it was the female victim who struck him with the bottle. He also said that he was struck over the head by the female victim whilst he was punching her partner as described in the police Sentencing Schedule. He was he said, brought to the ground by her and in the process struck his head on a concrete wall several times. After being hit on the head with the bottle and striking the wall he would "black out and forget the rest". Ms Tattersall put the rest of the events to him, which he had previously admitted to, as referred to in the Sentencing Schedule and his response was that he could not remember.
The applicant consistently maintained in response to several questions asked of him in cross examination by Ms Tattersall that an examination of the CCTV footage would show him being struck on the head by the bottle and having his head thrown into a concrete wall by the female victim. On one occasion when this was probed his response was "I thought the video evidence might be more than enough."
It should also be observed that there is nothing in the material before the Tribunal to suggest that the CCTV footage of that evening at the hotel records the applicant having been struck on the head with a bottle, let alone by the female victim. Presumably, investigating detectives when seizing the CCTV footage would have viewed it over some time to determine whether there was any prior interaction between the applicant and his victims which may have caused the assaults concerned to occur. More probably than not, they would also have spoken to security staff who would have alerted the investigating detectives to any prior incident which involved the applicant being struck over the head with a bottle. Which if it had occurred on those licensed premises, being a hotel, most likely would have been recorded in the CCTV footage.
It seems inconceivable that if the applicant had given instructions along these lines to his clearly well-prepared legal counsel that it would not have been part of his plea and sentence submissions.
It will be recalled he asked the male victim for a cigarette and the request was refused. This is hardly life-threatening behaviour. Nowhere in the documents produced by the Queensland Police in response to a summons served on that organisation is there any reference to the applicant being subject to threats to his life or being struck over the head by a bottle by the female victim or by anyone else for that matter. For these and the other reasons articulated in the immediate previous paragraphs, the Tribunal concludes that the statements contained in the two undated handwritten letters together with his response to question 10 of the Personal Circumstances Form have all the hallmarks of a recent invention.
Given the matters articulated above concerning the applicant's recent explanation about what occurred on the night of his offending in the hotel the Tribunal has significant concerns about whether the applicant's expressions of remorse are genuine. Given the way the applicant has in those three separate documents given a different explanation of what occurred, and attributed some responsibility on the male victim, the Tribunal also has concerns about whether he has really gained an appropriate level of insight into his offending. The three most recent statements which have been canvassed in detail earlier in this section of these reasons also have the hallmarks of "victim blaming". This is not indicative of someone who has really learned their lesson, appreciated the gravity of their offending, genuinely expressed remorse and gained insight into their offending. In short, the attitude recently adopted by the applicant to his offending in which he seeks to attribute significant blame to the male victim raises significant concerns about the risk of him offending in the future. This risk is amplified were he to resume drinking alcohol and consuming drugs.

[59]

A letter from Ms Skotland-Crowe, a Clinical Governance Team Member of SANE Australia dated 7 November 2025 was in evidence. That organisation provides a range of free digital and telehealth psychosocial support services for people over 18 years of age with complex mental health needs. It records that the applicant has participated in or is scheduled to dissipate in a "Guided Recovery" program over seven sessions between October and December of this year. He also has been booked to attend regular sessions with that organisation in the future both for one-on-one and group sessions.
An email of 24 October 2025 also from a counsellor who the applicant has seen, from the Support Team of SANE Australia was in evidence. That email confirmed that the applicant had been attending counselling on an individual and group basis with that organisation which was scheduled between October and December of this year also.
In an undated and handwritten letter contained in the G documents the applicant states that he has been accepted to attend AA meetings.[27] A memo from a Service Delivery Support Officer from Queensland Corrective Services dated 3 March 2025 notes that the applicant was listed to attend AA meetings held on the second Sunday of every month.[28]
In his evidence the applicant said that he had been unable to obtain medical records or other clinical notes that would corroborate how many sessions he had been attending for drug and alcohol courses or counselling and any AA meetings. The Tribunal is quite prepared to accept the applicant's evidence that he has regularly attended these sessions or meetings. It is quite apparent that since he has been taken into custody and immigration detention, he has applied himself enthusiastically and diligently to undertaking any course that he considers might assist him in terms of rehabilitation, and also minimising any future risks of reoffending. It was also apparent from his evidence that he has undertaken all courses he can so as to put his best foot forward in this application. The Tribunal also acknowledges this.
At various times in his evidence and submissions the applicant stated that of all the courses Psychology 101, which he had recently undertaken and which was the longest, had been the most beneficial. He described it is helping him to "dive into his mental space", it further enabled him to understand who he is, how he deals with the people around him, problem solve and make better decisions for himself. It does appear that this course has given him some skills to address potential triggers which might lead him to reoffend and/or relapse into the use of alcohol and/or cannabis.
Also tendered in evidence by the applicant was a document prepared by him entitled "Relapse Maintenance Prevention Plan" which was dated 29 October 2025. The document comprises three typewritten pages. The contents of that document have been considered in full by the Tribunal. It is appropriate to summarise some of the matters recorded in that document. It is fair to say that it is a well drafted and logically assembled document providing details of what the applicant believes he needs to address to avoid future offending.
In the section of the Relapse Maintenance Prevention Plan the introductory section is headed "Background". The applicant states that he is endeavouring to find ways to manage his emotions and his behaviour. He further recorded that he has contacted many professionals for assistance who have helped him complete the plan.
The next heading in the Relapse Prevention Plan is entitled "Identified Risks/Triggers". He identified triggers such as associating with people who encourage him to indulge in negative pursuits such as drinking alcohol and thereby exposing himself to environments that potentially increase his chances of offending. Candidly, he also noted that another trigger for him is when he allows his emotions to get the better of him. This was conceded by him in evidence to the Tribunal. Recognising this problem, he stated that he has been studying anger management techniques to assist controlling anger when it arises, and to progress this capacity to more properly control his anger and he has sought help from professionals to identify more effective ways of coping and managing stressful and anger driven situations. He considered that the stress and anger he experienced has arisen because of what he describes as a dysfunctional, traumatic and abusive upbringing which led to the onset of the mental health condition post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The applicant recognised that he understands people he has been "perilously" associating with previously have led him on a pathway of indulging in drugs and drinking in order to deal with his particular personal problems. He professes to now understand that that is not the appropriate approach to adopt.
The next issue addressed in the Relapse Prevention Plan are "Warning Signs". The applicant stated that because of courses he has undertaken in anger management techniques and stress management he has acquired skills and an understanding of what is needed to identify early signs that may lead to reoffending, including such factors as, environment, his mood and that of any other person, body language and words being used. He contends that his appreciation of these matters or, perhaps more accurately, warning signs, will assist him avoid intentionally dangerous situations in the future. In this context he professes that he no longer has a craving for drugs and alcohol, and this fact, coupled with his capacity to recognise the warning signs makes him a low risk of reoffending.
The next section of the Relapse Prevention Plan addresses "Strategies to Prevent Relapse". He identifies four such strategies as follows:

[63]

There is then a section in the Relapse Prevention Plan, "Positive Goals for the Future". Various goals are outlined in this section. They include supporting his family financially, undertaking further schooling or education, joining a men's group which has its focus of assisting young men undertaking things other than drinking or taking drugs, continuing to seek counselling and find other support groups that he could participate in.
Also in this section, he states that he has enrolled in a 15-week course with Sane Australia which includes, amongst other things, seven private counselling sessions and five group sessions. He considers this course would be of much assistance and lower the risk of him reoffending. It is part of what he sees as his ongoing reform and rehabilitation efforts.
Finally, the last section of the Relapse Prevention Plan, "Commitment Statement", states that he is committed to implementing the plan and avoiding behaviour that could lead to further harm to the community or further offending. He also expresses his determination to do his absolute best to succeed with the commitment plan and becoming a member of the community who can contribute positively to it, and his family in the future. It was also emphasised by him in this section that he intends to continue to engage with support services, complete all counselling and ultimately take responsibility for his actions.
When in the witness box, and making submissions, the applicant went into some detail about each of the courses he has undertaken, the counsellors and other professionals who he has consulted such as at SANE Australia and emphasised that they have given him the necessary perception and tools to address a variety of issues that he faces, which may have in the past been triggers for him leading him to commit the offences he did which included also overindulging in alcohol and marijuana. The Tribunal considers his evidence was given genuinely and that he does hold a firm commitment to make positive changes in his life. It acknowledges the energy with which he has devoted himself since he was placed into custody and immigration detention to take every positive opportunity that came his way.
It does conclude that by reason of this process of undertaking courses, consulting counsellors and other healthcare professionals who can assist him he has travelled well down the path of rehabilitation. It is to his credit that he has done so. He has clearly put in quite a considerable amount of effort and thought in approaching these opportunities. This is particularly evident with respect to the preparation and drafting of his Relapse Maintenance Prevention Plan which has been addressed earlier.
Although it strictly relates to the question of his risk of reoffending, one should pause to observe that in the structured environment of prison and immigration detention, where there are limited other options open to him to use his time, it is relatively easy to undertake or avail oneself of these opportunities.
It remains to be seen if he were released into the community whether he would be able to continue on the path of rehabilitation as he has to date. One hopes so. However, in any event, there will be significant challenges for the applicant to face if his rehabilitation efforts are to remain on track. It seems, as he readily admits, he will need to be totally abstinent from alcohol and also marijuana. There is also the question of associations with people who are a poor influence on him. It would require significant willpower to avoid yielding to these temptations. As is frequently observed in cases like this, rehabilitation in the way that the applicant has undertaken it is somewhat easier in the regulated environment of prison and immigration detention. He remains untested in the community, and that will certainly be difficult for him if he is exposed to various influences or triggers that have challenged him and ultimately lead to his offending in the past.

[64]

Assessing the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct on the information and evidence for the Tribunal is not an easy assessment to make.
Save for the report of Mr Stoker the clinical psychologist of 31 January 2025 and the correspondence from the counsellors such as at SANE Australia who the applicant has seen more recently since his imprisonment and immigration detention (although that correspondence is of little value as it doesn't really address the risk of him reoffending just what counselling he has undertaken), there is little more professional information available.
Mr Stoker's report identifies several issues that the applicant has experienced over some years. Some of those matters have already been touched on, they will be repeated. He referred to the applicant being physically and emotionally abused by his father from the age of four until 14. There was reference to continual emotional abuse from his father. The applicant's propensity to mix with a delinquent peer group and use cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol was identified as a risk factor, as it seems alcohol was on the evening of his most recent offending. Occasionally in the witness box, the applicant did concede from time to time that alcohol consumption was a problem for him. He admitted that he had resorted to heavy drinking. This particularly occurred after he was charged with other serious criminal matters that were eventually dismissed, or he was acquitted of, after a jury verdict. One can understand facing these charges, which took some years to be disposed of, would have been a significant stress factor for him, and likely to lead to excess alcohol consumption and/or drug use.
Another factor identified by Mr Stoker, which was acknowledged and referred to on several occasions by the applicant when giving his evidence, is that he has a low frustration tolerance and certainly when younger was quick to anger. He also identified that the applicant from a young age had a sense of abandonment. Several psychosocial stressors were also identified that occurred during his life. Alcohol certainly was a significant factor in the most recent offending when he committed the assaults concerned.
Importantly, it was the opinion of Mr Stoker that the applicant developed PTSD (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental-Disorders-Fifth Edition, American Psychiatric Association [DSM-V]) as a result of physical and emotional abuse from a young age, that he reported he suffered at the hands of his father.
Mr Stoker also expressed the opinion that as a result of his abusive childhood, the applicant has a fragile personality structure with some anti-social traits. By and large the applicant acknowledged this in the witness box. Mr Stoker further opined that at the time of the applicant's offending he was suffering a polysubstance abuse disorder [DSM-V] due to his alcohol and cannabis abuse. He considered that since the applicant's incarceration that disorder was in remission. Mr Stoker expressed the opinion that the applicant's offending was a combination of him having very poor psychological health, due to the factors outlined and alcohol abuse. It was Mr Stoker's strong opinion that the applicant should access psychological counselling to address the issues raised in his report. That is logical and clearly needed by the applicant.
As was contended for by the respondent, it must be borne in mind that Mr Stoker's report was prepared for the pending court hearing and was not part of any treatment program. It is apparent that the applicant's mental health conditions as diagnosed by Mr Stoker and his drug and alcohol problems have been long-standing and as far back as his teenage years. The PTSD remains untreated. This is of concern.
The applicant's endeavours towards rehabilitation have been outlined in some detail. He deserves credit for this. However, and unfortunately, the applicant has not had treatment for the mental health condition of PTSD that was diagnosed by Mr Stoker. True it is the applicant in his evidence stated he would do anything necessary to seek such treatment if he is released, but nonetheless treatment has not been undertaken.
It seems that unless a dedicated and structured program of treatment from mental health professionals such as a psychologist, or even possibly a psychiatrist, is undertaken and rigidly adhered to, in the event that he is released into the community there must be more than a low risk of reoffending if the applicant is subjected to the temptations of associating with inappropriate or delinquent peer groups, or is exposed to alcohol and/or drugs. It is appropriate again to repeat that the applicant's desires to avoid exposure to these potential triggers remain untested in the community. The risk of relapse is a real one and cannot be discounted. It remains to be seen if he would continue diligently seeking treatment for these conditions if he were released.
The risk of the applicant succumbing to temptation if he is released into the community is of concern given the circumstances surrounding two events involving the applicant whilst he was in prison.
In March of this year, a visitor to the applicant tested positive for a prohibited drug after a scanning test was conducted by prison staff. The drug was Carfentanil, and in powder form.[29] Apparently, this drug is a form of synthetic fentanyl, which is well known to be a powerful, dangerous, and addictive drug. In cross examination about this incident, the applicant's evidence was rather vague. His only response concerning the incident was, "I didn't think it was fentanyl. I am confused."
This does raise the question of whether the applicant is still associating with people from inappropriate or delinquent peer groups, as observed by Mr Stoker in his report, which of course was identified by him as a risk factor, and clearly in the case of the applicant it is. The respondent in closing submissions placed some emphasis on this fact as highlighting the potential risks of him relapsing into drug and alcohol use, and then leading to further offending if he is released into the community. There is some force in the submission given the fact that a visitor seeing him in prison, did as noted earlier, return a positive test for such a powerful drug. If he is returned to the community and continues to associate with such people, there must be a heightened risk of relapse, and therefore, further offending.
The other incident of concern whilst the applicant was in prison occurred in October 2024 when prison wardens, following an intelligence lead, conducted a clothing search of the applicant. That search revealed a package concealed in the waistband of the pants the applicant was wearing. The package contained nine strips of a drug Buprenorphine.[30] In cross examination the applicant readily conceded that those drugs were found on him as described in the incident reporting evidence. He also agreed that he understood the drug was used to treat heroin addicts and certainly, when not prescribed, as a means of getting "high". The question was asked of him if he was using drugs in prison. He denied that he was. Understandably, he was asked what he was doing with the drugs in his possession. His response was, "When you are trying to survive in prison that is how I ended up with them. Prison is not for faint of heart it was put on me to hold those things whatever they are called."
It is a difficult response for the Tribunal to accept. He is a comparatively fit young man who was clearly capable of looking after himself. It seems unlikely that he would not have been able to resist any pressure placed on him to be some kind of custodian or "warehouse" for drugs in prison. Certainly, by October 2024 he well knew that being caught with drugs in prison would have significant ramifications for him. In any event, again, it does raise questions about the applicant's judgement, the people he associates with, and who in this case clearly influenced him in an adverse manner. If he is released into the community, and outside the more rigid and structured environment of both prison and immigration detention, one must have genuine concerns of the considerable risks if he associates with people who are involved in the drug taking milieu. Should he do so, there must be a considerable risk of relapsing into drug and alcohol consumption, intentionally leading to further offending.
Guided by the language in certain parts of Direction 110 such as paragraph 5.2(7) Principles that in some circumstances the nature of 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 revoking a mandatory cancellation. Additionally, there is the language used in the last sentence of paragraph 8.1.2(1) that some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
The most recent offending led to the applicant's imprisonment with two extremely serious, confronting and violent assaults that the Tribunal has found, as did the sentencing Court, were completely and utterly unprovoked. There was also the assault on the female victim which was particularly brutal and thoroughly unacceptable.
A number of risk factors have been identified above which cause one to have considerable concern about the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. They include that the recommended forms of professional treatment suggested by Mr Stoker, including for his condition of PTSD or for abuse he suffered in childhood, have not been undertaken, that he has been associating with people from inappropriate or delinquent peer groups, including those involved in the drug taking milieu, and that he was in possession of drugs in jail. They give rise to a conclusion that there is a real risk of the applicant reoffending if he is released into the community.
For these reasons, the Tribunal accepts the respondent's contention that the applicant's risk of reoffending is more than low and in the range of moderate.

[66]

The Tribunal must now turn to consider what weight to attach to this primary consideration.
There are several paragraphs of Direction 110 that guide the Tribunal as decision-maker in undertaking such an assessment. Paragraph 5.2 "Principles" subparagraph (2) specifies that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Further, under paragraph 7 of that Direction "Taking the relevant considerations into account", this primary consideration being the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. However, it does confer a discretion on the Tribunal which must be properly exercised after it has considered all the evidence before it.
The Tribunal concludes that the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa. It has explained in detail the precise circumstances of the applicant's offending which led to his imprisonment. The only conclusion about such offending is that it was very serious. A brutal unprovoked attack on a man and a woman going about their business. The male victim suffered significant injuries.
The Tribunal has also expressed concerns about whether the applicant's expressions of remorse are genuine and whether he has really gained insight into what he did when he committed the assaults in question. Considerable detail has been devoted to this question earlier in these reasons.
Acknowledgement has been given to the steps the applicant has made on the pathway rehabilitation which is to his credit. However, as articulated earlier the applicant has a significant diagnosed mental health condition being PTSD and drug and alcohol issues. He has not had treatment for those matters identified by Mr Stoker, namely PTSD and for the abuse that he suffered in his childhood. This Mr Stoker opined has led to a fragile personality structure with some anti-social traits, which the applicant admitted.
The Tribunal has concluded that the applicant's risk of reoffending is in the moderate range.
When all these matters are assessed together guided by the language of Direction 110, as noted, it concludes that this consideration must weigh heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

[74]

The order was not made by consent, and also as is common these days, not made on a "without admissions" basis. In other words, the Court was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been placed before it to warrant making such an order, the burden of proof under s 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) had been discharged, presumably by the police prosecutors with evidence from the applicant's partner being given at a hearing. A copy of the DVO was served on the applicant on 15 March 2024. It contained a condition the applicant must demonstrate good behaviour towards the aggrieved party and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved party. The order is to remain in force from 14 March 2024 until 14 March 2029. As is self-evident that is a significant time frame. It must reflect the objective seriousness of the evidence before the court at the time of the application.
In cross examination the applicant readily acknowledged that the DVO dated 14 March 2024 had been made against him. He further stated that the aggrieved party was his current partner.
The applicant offered an explanation for what led to the DVO being granted against him. Apparently, his partner attended the premises that he was then residing in. He described her as starting to "tear the place up, we would go on to argue for a bit, then she would go on to tackle me. Then we would go on to have a tussle on the floor. Once we were tussling, I have gone to push her off, and then she would get up and leave my house." The police apparently became involved. The applicant stated he had a conversation with them in which they informed him with words to the effect that applications for, "matters like this are not favourable to the male and she was asked to put in place a DVO".
In cross examination the applicant conceded that he understood he was in a relationship with the aggrieved party, that he had committed domestic violence against his partner and that a DVO was desirable to protect her. He accepted that the court had found he had committed domestic violence against his partner. Further, he accepted that he had been physically violent towards his partner. To some extent the applicant sought to explain this away or downplay it by stating later in response to a question in cross examination, "she called me and told me she had been forced to put one on me."
The Tribunal considers that the applicant's evidence referred to in direct speech in the last two paragraphs to the effect that such applications are not favourable to the male or that in some way his partner had been forced to seek a DVO against him (presumably as a result of pressure from the police) is problematic. It seems that he does not fully appreciate the gravity of his domestic violence offending. As already noted, his comments seemed to have been made in an attempt to in some way diminish or downplay the gravity of his offending and his responsibility for it. It does not reflect well upon him. One is also puzzled by the expressions he used with respect to the conduct of police. It is difficult to comprehend in this day and age, that police officers in all Australian jurisdictions, who receive specialist training in investigation of, and taking action with respect to domestic violence, let alone having taken an oath of office to obey the law and properly administer it without fear or favour, would make such comments of the type alleged by the applicant.
The respondent contended that there is no further evidence concerning the frequency of the applicant's family violence conduct or whether there has been any trend of increasing seriousness as contemplated by paragraph 8.2(3)(a) of Direction 110. He has, nonetheless, engaged in such conduct, and he has not undertaken any rehabilitation by way of courses or participation in other programs to address family violence to prevent or minimise any future risk of re-occurring. Given some of the observations made concerning the applicant's attitude towards his acts of domestic violence, the failure to seek any rehabilitation assistance is of concern. The contentions of the respondent are well made in this regard.
Australian society has no tolerance for family violence, and the provisions of Direction 110 specifying as it does that family violence committed by a non-citizen is a primary consideration to be taken into account by decision-makers in applications such as this, reflect the serious concerns of the Australian community when a non-citizen engages in acts of family violence. The Australian community has repeatedly for many years sent out a loud and clear message that family violence is intolerable.[33]
Accordingly, the respondent contends that heavy weight should be placed on this primary consideration against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa. For the reasons explained the Tribunal accepts this contention on the part of the respondent.

[80]

The applicant has faced some challenges concerning his relationship with his family. The catalyst for those challenges appears to be to the Tribunal caused by the fractured relationship that he has had with his father. It should be observed that presently the applicant's father is not living with his family but on his own.
The applicant's mother gave evidence that she is currently separated from his father and that he is living with a friend. Additionally, he is subject to a DVO which prohibits him from attending the family home, speaking to her, and he is required to stay at least 100 m away from her. Contact is only permitted through lawyers or a designated family member. To the best of her recollection, the DVO was granted in approximately September of this year. In cross examination she was asked whether there were any prospects of her reconciling with the applicant's father. She stated that they had a long way to go before this might occur. It was also mentioned by her that, it appears as one of the conditions of the DVO, the applicant's father is required to attend counselling and some courses, precisely what, are unknown, for the purposes of bringing about a "change of behaviour". She was unable to say how long this process might take.
It was said by the applicant that he has not had a good relationship with his father. He described it as never really seeing eye to eye with him, which frequently led to confrontations between them. On three occasions when he was aged 14, 16, 17 and 18, he was on his terms "kicked out" of the family home. When asked to provide more detail of what caused this, he explained that there were a series of traumatic experiences that he had endured during his childhood. His father was, according to him, quite abusive, both physically and mentally. He would it appears, engage in very aggressive outbursts towards the applicant then tell him to leave the family home. Frequently, when these confrontations occurred which culminated in the applicant being ejected from the family home, he said that his father was significantly affected by alcohol and/or drugs.
Mr Stoker, the clinical psychologist who assessed the applicant in anticipation of his appearance in the Queensland Magistrates' Court, as previously referred to, recorded the applicant informing him about certain matters concerning his relationship with his father. They should be briefly mentioned. In the section of his report entitled "Early Development", Mr Stoker reported the applicant informing him that his father was physically and emotionally abusive towards him from the age of 4 until 14. It was also reported by him that the applicant stopped playing rugby and there was a conflict between them about this. His father was recorded as abusing him whilst intoxicated and would speak to him in a disparaging way. It was also mentioned in that report that the applicant ended up in a share house until the age of 20 after his father had ordered him to leave following an altercation. In 2022 it was noted, there was another altercation between the applicant and his father when his father "took off". The applicant informed Mr Stoker he did not see his father again until a recent prison visit. Presumably, in or around approximately January of this year. In his evidence, the applicant stated that his father had visited him approximately three or five times when he was in prison and had made a similar number of visits since he has been in immigration detention.
The applicant's mother's evidence concerning the relationship between him and his father was slightly different. Whilst she readily acknowledged that they "did fight a lot", she said apart from one incident in 2021, when they did push each other around, there was no other violence that she observed between them. She also described the interactions between the applicant and his father as "butting heads". This involved pushing the applicant too hard to make him do things that he did not wish to do. On her version of the applicant's leaving the family home, she said sometimes he left of his own accord so that things didn't escalate further, and on other times it was at the behest of his father. It was a mixture of both of those. She said that usually she would message the applicant days or weeks later and tell him to return home which he usually did. His evidence was that during these times when he was absent from the family home, however it occurred, he did have a phone, and he would regularly call his mother to check up on her. He also said he kept in touch with his older two siblings as best he could by this means and by occasional visits.
There was a significant period of separation between the applicant and his family that commenced with his sister returning to live in New Zealand in 2018. The rest of the family including the applicant's mother, father and siblings also returned there in 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the COVID pandemic. They returned in approximately April 2023. The applicant was probed about this in cross examination. It was suggested to him that he had chosen to remain in Australia. His response was that what really happened was that he had been "kicked out of home" prior to his family returning to New Zealand, and therefore, actually had no idea that the move was taking place. At that time, he had no money or a passport that would enable him to have travelled. He stated, "I was essentially abandoned here. I didn't want to return with them as I know the life in New Zealand."
After the applicant's family returned from New Zealand in approximately April 2023 he was living on his own. According to him, which seem to be corroborated in one way or another by the other witnesses who gave evidence, there was relatively frequent contact even though they lived some distance apart. He described it as occurring usually once every month or couple of weeks. This frequency of contact he stated continued until such time as he went to prison. He also described having contact with his siblings whenever he saw his mother, or otherwise spoke to her usually by telephone. He described the contact with them as, although not consistent, reasonably frequently because, "I would be back and forth from the house", being the family home_._
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a particularly close relationship with his mother. She gave evidence of the hearing of the application. It is acknowledged that the process concerning the applicant's visa and giving evidence at the hearing of this application together have been stressful for her. The applicant gave evidence also that he has provided both emotional and financial support to his mother over the years, particularly when he was living on his own. He explained that in terms of financial assistance he would give her anywhere between fifty and a couple of hundred dollars when he could. There was evidence from his mother that when the COVID pandemic broke out in 2020 the applicant was the only member of the family still working and that he provided much-needed financial support to them during that time. Also, she described the applicant as responsible, hard-working and a caring individual who had always been there for her family. She emphasised his positive characteristics and believed that he has learned from his mistakes. Throughout this time the applicant was gainfully employed and able to do so. More will be said about this a little later. It is apparent that the applicant's mother was grateful for both the financial and emotional support that she received from the applicant, even if their personal contact was at times fragmented as described.
The applicant's sister,[34] who gave evidence at the hearing of the application, said that since her return from New Zealand she has only seen the applicant approximately three times. They do communicate by a variety of electronic means every week or two. Her evidence was that notwithstanding periods of separation, some of which have been relatively lengthy, the applicant is particularly close to her, his mother and his siblings. The Tribunal had no reason to doubt the evidence of the applicant's sister on this topic.
His sister did however, particularly in her undated witness statement, that was in evidence before the Tribunal, attest to the positive qualities and characteristics of the applicant. She emphasised the contribution that he had made to his family in a variety of ways. The closeness of their relationship was emphasised. She described him as someone known for his hard work, kindness, and compassion who always put his family first. In that context she recalled that many times when her father was drunk and abusive the applicant stepped in to protect his siblings. He was described by her as a shield for the family and she does not know what they would do without him. His sister both in her statement and from the witness box acknowledged the applicant's offending, although she was not aware of the precise details, nonetheless she knew it was serious because it resulted in a term of imprisonment being imposed. She believes that he has rehabilitated and can rebuild his life. The Tribunal acknowledges this evidence from the applicant's sister.
There were several other letters of support or character references in evidence before the Tribunal concerning the applicant's contribution and strong ties to his family. By way of example his brother Aitama emphasised the vital role that he has played with his siblings and his contribution to the family unit.[35] An auntie who has known him since he was born observed that he has contributed to a strong and close-knit family connection. She emphasised his qualities of responsibility, respect and a strong work ethic. Additionally, she emphasised his assistance around the family household and that he was part of a supportive, and loving family dynamic.[36]
The applicant also drew the Tribunal's attention in Part 9 "Family Details", of the Personal Circumstances Form completed by him that he does have a significant number of extended family members residing in Australia.[37] These family members included four or more uncles and aunties, two or more nieces and nephews, five or more cousins and several people described as "grandparents".
It was mentioned in the evidence that the term "grandparent" in the culture from which the applicant comes is sometimes used to describe a trusted senior citizen who may not necessarily be a biological relative, but nonetheless very close to the family. In his evidence he described one of these "Grandparents in Australia" as the parents of an auntie Fiona. The grandfather is a pastor of the Remnant Church who also runs a charity that provides food to underprivileged people in Logan. The applicant has assisted from time to time with distribution of food from that church. Otherwise, he stated that he does have contact with these broader family members periodically, sometimes by phone, social media platforms such as TikTok Live and sometimes in person. There are also he described, broader family social gatherings held a few times a year at which he attends and sees them. One of these aunts Fiona Horne was one of the parties who provided a statement of support to him.[38] They are important social connections that the applicant has to Australia. Such connections are acknowledged by the Tribunal as a relevant tie to Australia as contemplated by paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110.
Brief mention should be made of the fact that prior to his offending and subsequent imprisonment the applicant had a good work history. He also satisfactorily completed the final year of high school.[39]
To the applicant's credit, since he left school, he has been gainfully employed. Initially he worked in the steel fixing industry and then had several positions in the packing industry including with Woolworths and Coles. As far as the Tribunal can gather, it appears he worked hard and was a good employee. It was also a positive contribution to the Australian Community.
The applicant gave evidence that he has been in a relationship with a partner for almost four years. As contended for by the respondent the information or evidence concerning her and their relationship status is somewhat unclear, or perhaps vague. He stated the relationship commenced in approximately 2020 or 2021. When initially giving his evidence about his relationship with her, he was unable to spell her name. (Ms Matenga). Some details concerning the difficulties in this relationship between the applicant and his partner have already been canvassed earlier in these reasons when addressing primary consideration 8.2 of Direction 110, Family violence committed by the non-citizen. Those observations are referred to and repeated for the purposes of addressing this paragraph of the Direction.
There was some evidence before the Tribunal indicating that the relationship between the applicant and his partner was not still subsisting. The report of Mr Stoker, the clinical psychologist, which has been referred to several times earlier in these reasons, reported that the relationship had ended, and that the applicant had not been in a relationship since. He also reported the applicant as telling him that, "this was a "toxic" relationship." It was also reported by Mr Stoker that, "He reported he feels better since the relationship ended and feels "free"." It appears that although the applicant informed Mr Stoker of these facts as recorded in his report made in January of this year, following an assessment that he undertook of the applicant, subsequent events have probably made these observations somewhat superseded.
The applicant's sister in cross examination was questioned about what she knew concerning the applicant's relationship with Ms Matenga. Her evidence was that she believed they had split up. She stated that she heard this from the applicant.
On the other hand, the applicant's mother said she understood that he and Ms Matenga are still in a relationship. She was aware of the DVO being made against her son and that it was obtained by his partner. She was unaware of the reasons for it and had not spoken to her son about why it was granted.
He was pressed in cross examination about whether the relationship with his partner was still ongoing. The applicant conceded that there were periods where they were apart from each other, and to use his words, "Yes, we have had our ups and downs. He also stated that when he was placed in immigration detention, they made contact, had a lengthy discussion and decided to continue with the relationship.
In cross examination the applicant stated that his partner is an Australian citizen who was born and raised here. He was not too sure if she is a New Zealand citizen with a right to reside there. He is aware that she had a grandmother in New Zealand who passed away a few years ago. They have discussed the possibility of her relocating to New Zealand with the applicant were he to return there. He expressed the view that she should not. However, he stated she wishes to continue with the relationship, but they have not fully considered whether she would or should relocate there.
The fact that a DVO is presently in force does mean that the relationship between them is clearly subject to some limitations. This would need to be addressed if the applicant is released into the community and wishes to properly resume a relationship with his partner.
Notwithstanding the questions concerning the relationship between the applicant and his partner Ms Matenga, which had been outlined in some detail, the Tribunal considers that it is more probable than not that the relationship, although strained and subject to challenges, does subsist. Therefore, some weight must attach to this fact in favour of the applicant, when acquiring this paragraph of Direction 110.
The question is now to decide what weight to attach to this primary consideration. The applicant understandably contended that very significant or heavy weight should attach to it in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
On the other hand, the respondent whilst conceding that the weight to be attached to this primary consideration must be in the applicant's favour, submits that only "some weight" should be given to it.
Fairly extensive details have been given of the applicant's relationship with his immediate family, his broader family and his partner. Whilst there is no doubt that his relationship with his immediate family has been somewhat fragmented as described, and that there are some question marks concerning his relationship with his partner, nonetheless the Tribunal considers that overall, the strength and nature of his ties to his family, his partner and Australia are comparatively strong. True it is that he has had his challenges with his father. This is acknowledged. However, the evidence from particularly his mother and his sister, not to mention the written statements from other family members and friends, corroborate that he does have close connections with them. He has provided emotional and financial support to his mother and siblings from time to time as described. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that comparatively heavy weight should attach to this primary consideration in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

[84]

They are both Australian citizens.
The applicant contends that if he is required to return to New Zealand his brother and sister under the age of 18 years would be devastated. During his evidence, the applicant said that he has a close relationship with both of his siblings who are under the age of 18 years.
The applicant's mother stated that he had supported his younger siblings at school and had also provided assistance to them with both work and transportation.
Some considerable detail concerning the applicant's relationship with his siblings has already been addressed in the application of paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. Those details are referred to and repeated for the purposes of addressing this primary consideration.
His minor brother does have a disability in the form of a significant speech impediment. The applicant stated that he does speak regularly with him and endeavours to assist him come to terms with the disability and improve his speech capacity. He also believes that his brother had been tested for autism but was not certain whether a diagnosis had been made. Additionally, he was not certain if his brother was a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These issues with his brother are acknowledged.
Under paragraph 8.4(3) of Direction 110, if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) identifies several factors that, where relevant, must be considered by the Tribunal when applying this primary consideration.
One of those factors prescribed by paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of Direction 110 is the question of the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight is generally given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact. Clearly, the applicant is not their parent, and that role is largely fulfilled at the moment by the applicant's mother, given that his father is no longer permitted to reside in the family home with her, and to a significant degree by his sister, who also resides under the same roof and who provides personal and financial support to the family unit. She gave evidence at the hearing of the application confirming this. The preponderance of the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant's contact with his two minor siblings has been fragmented.
Apart from the fact that he has lived away from the family home for some time and did so in a punctuated way from a comparatively early age, which has been recounted earlier in these reasons, he has now for some time also been imprisoned and in immigration detention, which out of necessity has meant that his contact with them has been minimal. In his evidence he stated that his parents wanted to bring his siblings, including his minor siblings, to see him when he was imprisoned. However, he stated the prison was not a place to bring children to, which is understandable. Since he has been in immigration detention, he says that his siblings, including his minor siblings have visited him more frequently.
Although the applicant is not a parent of his two minor siblings, given the evidence that has unfolded about his family, not only from him, but also his mother and sister, one can contend that the provisions of paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110 due to some extent apply to him. If he were returned to the community and resumed living under one roof with his mother and siblings, given the absence of his father, there is the possibility of him discharging some kind of parental role.
Given the evidence that has already been canvassed concerning his relationship with his immediate family, his contribution financially, emotionally and personally, which has been acknowledged, there is the prospect that he may play a positive parental role in his minor siblings' lives in the future. Some considerable reference has already been made concerning the applicant's role and contribution to his immediate family when addressing the primary consideration of the Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. That analysis is equally relevant to addressing this primary consideration.
As for the impact of the applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct he has had, and will have on his minor siblings, which the Tribunal is required to consider under paragraph 8.4(4)(c) of Direction 110 there are several relevant matters. His imprisonment and subsequent immigration detention has meant that his ability to maintain contact with his siblings, who are minors has been severely restricted. One infers that this could not have assisted in maintaining their relationship. Insofar as the applicant has provided support to his brother with a disability, his absence would have probably caused him some distress or upset.
Another impact that arises from the applicant's prior conduct leading to his imprisonment in immigration detention arises from the fact that he could no longer work. As he could no longer work, his ability to make financial contributions to the maintenance of his family, including his minor siblings, ceased. This together with the absence of his immediate presence and personal support to them, it is considered, falls within the ambit of the language used in paragraph 8.4.4(4)(c).
Irrespective of any likely future conduct, if the applicant were to reoffend in a manner similar to his most recent matters, he would be likely to serve a significant term of imprisonment and most likely subsequent immigration detention. Once again, this would deprive his minor siblings of any support he can provide, whatever form that may be.
The Tribunal is required to consider the likely effect that any separation from the applicant would have on his siblings who are under the age of 18 years. He is also required to take into account the ability of them to maintain contact in other ways. Much has been said about the likely effect any separation would have on minor siblings already. The applicant says that they would be devastated. That was to a large extent, in various ways, corroborated by the evidence of his mother and his sister. Much has been said earlier in these reasons, particularly as noted earlier, when addressing primary consideration 8.3 of Direction 110, The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. Those observations are referred to and repeated.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it concludes also with respect to his minor sibling brother the adverse effects of separation from the applicant will be amplified because of his disabilities and special needs. This must weigh in the applicant's favour.
Whilst it is true to say that in the era of the internet it will be possible for the applicant's minor siblings to maintain contact with him in other ways by using various applications that are readily available, as he alluded to such as TikTok Live, WhatsApp and FaceTime, they are clearly no substitute for personal interaction. The Tribunal accepts they will be affected if this is the only realistic means of communication or contact between them.
As for any known views of the children which the Tribunal is also required to address under paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 110, there is really scant evidence. However, when one considers collectively the evidence given by the applicant, his mother and his sister on this question, it infers that although the applicant's minor siblings probably do not understand or realise what the visa process actually involves, they would clearly prefer it that he be permitted to remain in Australia.
In the evidence as it unfolded at the hearing of the application, reference was made to the applicant having some kind of relationship with the daughter of a previous partner Ms Emilio. Unfortunately, the evidence on this minor child is scant. Mr Stoker in his report of 31 January 2025 recorded that he was in a relationship with her between the ages of 19 and 21. He lived together with her and her daughter who was described as being 11 years old. In his evidence during cross examination, the applicant stated that when he commenced his relationship with Ms Matenga he continued to speak to his former partner's daughter. It seems that this relationship or connection has not been maintained since he went to prison. The respondent contends, and the Tribunal agrees that there is simply insufficient information to draw any realistic inclusions about that child's best interests in the context of any relationship she may have with the applicant. Certainly, there is just not any information that enables the factors identified in paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110 to be properly considered. The best that the Tribunal can do in the circumstances is acknowledge the existence of this relationship, such as it is, if at all and take it into account.
In terms of the weight that the Tribunal should attach to this primary consideration the Tribunal concludes that although it does weigh in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa, only moderate weight should be so attached. The reasons for this are that the applicant is not the children's parent, his relationship with them has been fragmented or punctuated, as explained over quite some years, and of course since his imprisonment and immigration detention there has been limited interaction. This has also meant that his ability to provide financial support ceased and is a direct consequence of his offending. It is apparent that the applicant's mother and significantly his sister are shouldering the majority of responsibilities for these minor children which must be recognised when considering the weight to apply to this primary consideration.

[88]

Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
It is also provided in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110 that 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.
In applying this primary consideration, it is instructive to refer to several passages from the decision in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs which is frequently referred to in cases before this Tribunal and the courts_._[40] Several passages from that decision explain that, as is apparent from an examination of a paragraph of the earlier Ministerial Direction, Direction 99, which expressed similar language, to the extent it contains a statement of the expectations of the Australian community, the clause is "deeming".[41] As Charlesworth J also explained, the clause imputes or ascribes to the whole of the Australian community an expectation that wholly aligns with the expectation of the executive government of the day in respect of its subject matter.[42] These expectations are established and are to be applied as norms.
As Mortimer J (as she then was) in YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[43] observed, in substance, this consideration is adverse to any applicant where they have failed the character test and have been convicted of serious crimes.
The expectations of the Australian community should be determined by reference to the provisions of the Ministerial Direction itself, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case. The Tribunal as decision-maker must proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian government set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community.[44] The weight to be applied in undertaking the balancing exercise prescribed by the Ministerial Direction is ultimately a matter for determination by the decision-maker, in this case the Tribunal, taking into account all relevant individual factors including countervailing factors from the person's specific circumstances.[45]
Applying the language adopted by this primary consideration of Direction 110 which articulates that the Australian community expects as a norm that the Government not allow a non-citizen who has engaged in serious breach of such expectation, or an unacceptable risk that they may do so, to remain in Australia, to the facts and circumstances of this application, one reaches the conclusion that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa is appropriate.
Whilst this primary consideration is adverse to the Applicant where he has failed the character test and it reflects an expectation on the part of the Australian community as a norm that it expects non-citizens to obey the law, the question for the Tribunal in this exercise is to determine what weight to attach to this primary consideration. It is also acknowledged that these expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
The offences committed by the applicant were brutal assaults, whilst the applicant was highly intoxicated, affected by cannabis and were really just acts of unprovoked mindless thuggery. Amplifying the gravity of the applicant's offending was the way he committed the assault on the female victim. In a sense he is fortunate that she did not suffer more serious injuries than she did. Of course, it in no way diminishes the extreme gravity of such offending. The offending on the part of the applicant was simply deplorable, it is, as was observed by the sentencing Magistrate, courts all over Australia and the broader Australian community, conduct that must be resoundingly denounced. It is conduct that the Australian community simply has no tolerance for. The Australian community has repeatedly for many years sent a loud and clear message that any acts of violence against women are intolerable. This is reflected in the specific references to it and classification as serious in the applicable paragraphs of Direction 110 previously referred to. They don't need to be spelt out again. It is a message that must have been well known to the applicant prior to his offending against his female victim.
Another matter that reinforces this conclusion is of course the question of the acts of family violence which have been referred to earlier in addressing the primary consideration 8.2 of Direction 110, Family violence committed by the non-citizen. Not only is it concerning that the DVO was granted against him in the circumstances as he explained it, but it is also of concern when addressing this primary consideration that the applicant's attitude towards the DVO that was made against him and the reasons for it do not accord with Australian community expectations. His reference to such applications not being favourable to males and that in some way the police might have forced his partner to make the application highlight concerns that he was seeking to downplay the gravity of such conduct and also reflect the distinct possibility that he does not appreciate that any act of family violence against a woman is plainly unacceptable to the Australian community. It also shows a disdain for the Australian court system that is not acceptable either.
Accordingly, very heavy weight must be placed on this primary consideration against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

[96]

The respondent contends, and it is quite apparent, that the applicant is quite young, clearly physically fit, has had a sound history of employment, together with a good work ethic and in more recent times, particularly since taken into custody and immigration detention, has taken the opportunity to undertake an array of various courses which would improve his employment prospects wherever he were to live. It is conceded by the respondent that whilst he may face some temporary obstacles or impediments initially upon a return to New Zealand, they are not insurmountable. The Tribunal agrees.
On the question of obtaining employment in New Zealand the applicant's mother in her evidence stated that obtaining full-time employment in the region where their family were living on their return, namely the Bay of Plenty was difficult. Usually, she was only able to obtain seasonal employment. However, the applicant's sister's evidence was that when she returned to New Zealand she was able to successfully obtain full-time work.
Notwithstanding these observations, the Tribunal acknowledges that initially upon a return to New Zealand the applicant would face some challenges and difficulties. He has lived in Australia for a comparatively long time and all of his immediate family, being his parents and siblings, reside in this country. Apart from some grandparents, there is no social network or immediate family members who he could turn to for support, particularly in a social setting, but also from an economic perspective were he to return there. His mother explained in her evidence that his grandmother is in care and his grandfather is experiencing the early stages of Alzheimer's, so they realistically would not be able to support him in any way. She also explained that there are other more distant family members who are spread throughout New Zealand with whom there has really been limited or no contact over the years. Realistically, they are unlikely to be able to offer him any kind of support whatsoever.
Inevitably, there would be some adjustment period that he would face. In terms of family members remaining in New Zealand the applicant states that they are members of gangs with whom he does not wish to associate. In any event he has had no contact with them for years and any previous contact a long time ago was minimal.
The applicant placed some evidence in his submissions, which were put in various ways, that if he were returned to New Zealand, he would in some way become or drift towards undesirable gangs or street gangs. Maybe even be pressured to join them. In developing this submission, he referred to the fact that many of his family members are or have been members of such gangs. This included his father. He stated that one of the reasons his father ultimately moved the family to Australia was to break out of the cycle of gang culture or involvement with them.
This submission concerning gangs, and the risk of him falling into their orbit, on the part of the applicant was to a large degree refuted and not corroborated by the evidence of both the applicant's mother and his sister.
His mother's evidence was that there were other family members spread out over New Zealand. Some of them she said had gang affiliations. However, the majority of their family if not actual members of gangs are close to people who are affiliated. These people are predominantly spread out around the region of New Zealand known as the Bay of Plenty. In a telling portion of her evidence in response to a question in cross examination, his mother did say that it is individuals who decide to associate with gangs rather than them being pressured to join in the way that was conveyed by the applicant in his evidence and the material before Tribunal.
The applicant's sister, who it will be recalled returned to New Zealand earlier than the rest of the family, and has lived there for some time gave considerably different evidence on the topic. She said that the decision to move from New Zealand to Australia was for a better lifestyle and employment opportunities. She was asked if any of their family had involvement with gangs to which she steadfastly denied they did not. His sister was also asked whether his father had any gang affiliations, and similarly, she was adamant that he did not. It was readily conceded by her that they did have family members over there that did, but they were not close to them.
The Tribunal considers that the applicant's submissions and evidence concerning the risks of him falling into gangs is the product of embellishment or exaggeration. It prefers the evidence of his mother and sister on the topic that has been recounted above.
Whether the applicant, if he were returned to New Zealand, associated with or joined a gang would ultimately be a decision for him, and him alone. It does not seem that there would be any particular pressure placed upon him. This also needs to be viewed with a degree of reality, that he would be upon his return without any social connections and a relative outsider. Additionally, as was explained by his mother, any family associations or affiliations with gangs are largely within the confined rural area of the Bay of Plenty. It would be perfectly open to him, as contended for by the respondent, upon return to New Zealand to relocate to cities and towns where there is no gang presence. This would be quite apparent, one infers, if he were for instance to reside in a significant city such as Auckland.
The Tribunal considers that whilst some weight should attach to this other consideration in support of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa, given the relatively limited extent of impediments the applicant would face if he is removed to New Zealand, only minimal weight should be applied.

[99]

For the reasons explained above the Tribunal has found that primary considerations 8.1 Protection of the Australian community, 8.2 Family violence committed by the non-citizen and 8.5 Expectations of the Australian community, weigh against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa. The Tribunal refers to and repeats the details of the weight attached by to each of these primary considerations at the conclusion of the reasons addressing each of them above. They need not be repeated.
With respect to the two primary considerations that weigh in the applicant's favour for finding another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked, namely 8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia and 8.4 Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision it is apparent from the matters addressed above that collectively they cannot and do not outweigh those primary considerations which weigh against revocation of the mandatory cancellation.
The other consideration in favour of the applicant being paragraph 9.2 Extent of impediments if removed has attracted some, if only minimal weight.
The applicant's offending was very serious indeed. At the sake of repetition, it was brutal, unprovoked and caused significant injuries to his victims. The Tribunal has significant concerns about the applicant's expressions of remorse and whether they were genuine. It also by reason of the somewhat remarkable approach he adopted at the hearing of the application and in documents lodged with the respondent in which he sought to assert that he was provoked, had been struck over the head by one of his victims using a bottle was totally contrary to the evidence before the Tribunal and the admissions that he made concerning the offences both to Mr Stoker the clinical psychologist and clearly the submissions to the sentencing Magistrates' Court. Submissions were made on his behalf with the benefit of experienced criminal law practitioners.
The questions of family violence engaged in by the applicant are also problematic. Much has been said about this already. Apart from the fact that the acts of family violence that he committed, which he admitted to, the plainly unacceptable rather flawed answers he gave about the process leading to the DVO being made against him was unsatisfactory and prompts the Tribunal to question whether he really understands the gravity of what he did, and that domestic violence is plainly unacceptable.
Finally, with respect to both the assaults he committed which led to his imprisonment and the acts of family violence, they are matters which do not accord with the expectations of the Australian community. In terms of the applicant's attempts to allege that he was provoked and struck on the head with a bottle at the time that he committed the assaults together with his answers in cross examination concerning the process of a DVO being made against him, such attempts are extremely puzzling. He did not present as an unintelligent man. At times he demonstrated a capacity for deep thought and reflection. That he took this stance concerning those matters does not reflect well on him and caused some concern. One may speculate to some extent, but there has to be some doubt whether he really appreciates what he has actually done.

DTR21 v Minister for Immigration, citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (118 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (6)

Houkamau and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2532 (26 November 2025)