The nature and seriousness of the Applicant 's conduct to date

1. The Direction provides that violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and / or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
2. Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of certain crimes or conduct) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen. Subparagraph (e) requires the decision maker to have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and /or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
3. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an Applicant 's offending.[4]
4. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant 's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal has had regard to the police facts sheets and the sentencing remarks.
5. There are before the Tribunal sentencing remarks in relation of the most recent offence of kidnapping for ransom which occurred in August 2019. The sentencing remarks were delivered by Fantin DCJ in May 2022. His Honour refers to the circumstances of the offending, as reported in the Agreed Statement of Facts, as follows. The Applicant , in the company of two others, detained the victim and, over the course of 10-11 hours, threatened and assaulted him in order to have the victim repay a debt he owed to the defendant, who was the instigator. The victim was repeatedly assaulted by the defendant. The victim was also told that if he did not get the money or tried to get away, the Applicant would go to the victim's mother's house to get the money from her. The Applicant also made threats to kill. The sentencing judge referred to the Applicant as being the instigator and the ringleader. The Applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment (reduced on appeal). The Tribunal has had regard to the comments of the appeal court in relation to the Applicant 's appeal on sentence.
6. In oral evidence the Applicant told the Tribunal that his two co-accused were responsible, and he was not involved in any violence as his co-accused 'brought the trouble to his place'. The Applicant states that he never made a statement and disagreed with the finding of the court, which is why he appealed. (The Tribunal notes the appeal was against the sentence but not the conviction.) The Applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that he was never a violent person.
7. The Tribunal has had regard to the sentencing remarks made in November 2015 in relation to the Commonwealth offences of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (GBL). The facts are described as follows. The Applicant had ordered one litre of GBL under the description of wheel cleaner. The package contained 1135.5 grams of GBL. Some days later the Applicant had ordered another litre of GBL. This package contained 1125.5 grams of GBL. The packages were addressed to the Applicant under one of his aliases and at his home address. Both were intercepted by Customs. In relation to the state offences, it is stated that when the Applicant was driving and stopped by the police, he identified himself under a different name. the police located a number of documents, including a driver license, under that name and some of the documents were false. The police discovered an amount over $300,000 analysing the accounts held in the Applicant 's aliases. The police also found $75,900 in cash in the Applicant 's car, SIM cards and mobile phone which were suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of possessing a dangerous drug. The police also located a package containing methylamphetamine.
8. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his wife ordered the drugs from overseas and put his name on it and made the payment in his name while he was required to pick up the drugs. The Applicant states that this is known to the police and his wife was also charged at the time. However, the Applicant also concedes that he was involved in that enterprise, in particular with making the payment for the drugs and with other aspects. The Applicant seems to minimise his culpability for the offending by blaming his wife for the offence. The Applicant also concedes in oral evidence that he was a drug courier and agreed to deliver drugs in return for a payment. The Applicant states that he knew the drugs were in the car he was asked to drive, and he was given over $2000 in payment.
9. The Applicant in his evidence to the Tribunal admits to holding illegal guns for others and states that 'he is sorry' for that and did his time. The Applicant admits to two occasions when he escaped police custody.
10. The sentencing remarks in relation to the counterfeit money offending indicate that the Applicant had asked his co-offender to make $200,000 worth of Australian notes in exchange for drugs. The second count relates to the amount over $42,000 in counterfeit Australian notes being found in the Applicant 's possession. Other counts relate to the Applicant passing counterfeit $50 notes on separate occasions to businesses. Other offending included the Applicant stealing sunglasses from a business and making a false claim for the loss of two bags from an airline to the sum exceeding $8,800.
11. The sentencing remarks in relation to the offending relating to the trafficking of a dangerous drug indicate that the trafficking involved was of a very serious kind and was a large-scale operation, which was sustained and persistent with a degree of sophistication. In oral evidence the Applicant blamed his former wife for that offending.
12. The Tribunal has also been provided with incident reports prepared in immigration detention centres, police records, bail reports and inmate profile documents and other materials. The Tribunal has also been provided with QCS violation history.
13. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had engaged in multiple offences. The Tribunal considers his offending to be very serious, particularly the drug offending (trafficking and importation) and the kidnapping offence, which seems to have involved inflicting physical harm towards the victim (whether it was done by the Applicant personally or whether he had other involvement in that crime). The stealing and fraud offences are likely to have caused financial damage to others. The driving offences had the potential of causing personal injury to other road users. The Tribunal has formed the view that the offending was very serious.

The risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal has considered the risk to the community, should the Applicant reoffend. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some of the conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; > > b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > 1. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > 1. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence

3. Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of her offending to date, including any escalation in the offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community's tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
4. The Tribunal has considered the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
5. In the revocation request the Applicant states that he wants to be there for his children. He states that he has sold his house to be closer to his eldest daughter and he has been accepted at Gidgee Healing Recovery and Community Wellbeing centre. The Applicant presented with his revocation request a letter of offer from Normanton Recovery and Community Well-being Centre, as well as a number of character references, including a statement from his daughter. The Applicant provided additional character references and support letters to the Tribunal. There is before the Tribunal a letter of support from Parents Under Pressure, stating the Applicant had participated in the parenting program and had contributed positively. There is evidence that the Applicant had completed an ATODS parenting program and other programs including Foundation Numeracy and Literacy programs. There is also before the Tribunal evidence relating to the Applicant 's past employment.
6. In his statement in support of the revocation request the Applicant outlined his criminal history and stated that his criminal offending did not involve any violence to anyone and that he has never been charged with a violence offence. The Applicant expressed remorse for his crimes stating that his crimes affected his family and the community. The Applicant states that he has 'finally woke up' to himself while in jail and is seeing a psychologist who made him 'see sense and the right thing to do'. The Applicant refers to the courses he completed while in prison, including a Drug and Alcohol course and others. He states that he will be seeing a psychologist upon release.
7. In his submissions to the delegate the Applicant stated that he has never been violent and that the claimed violence during the kidnapping offence was not committed by him and was 'taken off' on appeal. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he was never violent and the appeal court 'took violence out'. The Respondent notes that the appeal court considered that the violence should not have been considered when sentenced, rather than finding that the violence did not occur. The Respondent refers to the agreed facts in relation to that offending which the Applicant now denies and claims that it 'never happened'. The Applicant was taken through the agreed statement of facts and denied the information there concerning his involvement.
8. In his written submission to the delegate in support of the revocation request the Applicant refers to his early life and the history of sexual abuse at home and at school, leading to lack of education and moor mental health, and leading to the Applicant to escape memories through drugs and alcohol. It is stated that the Applicant appears to suffer from an intellectual disability with his IQ scores suggesting mental retardation and a functional level of a 6-7-year-old. The submission notes that the Applicant was taught from a young age by his uncle to engage in crime and would not have been able to organise the crimes committed by himself. It is stated that the Applicant suffers from Paranoid Personality Disorder increasing his risk of depression, and he suffers from schizophrenia.
9. The Applicant told the Tribunal that many of the offences were committed by his then wife, as he cannot read and write and it was his wife who did all the paperwork and submitted the forms (such as Centrelink fraud). The Applicant also states that his wife made up several identities to claim Centrelink payments. The Applicant states that he is no longer with his wife and that reduces the risk of reoffending. The Tribunal is unpersuaded by the Applicant 's evidence that the criminal conduct was entirely of someone else's doing and that he had no involvement. This is so because on his own evidence, the Applicant was aware of the offending that he claims was planned by his wife (for example he told the Tribunal she had ordered the drugs from overseas but he had to pick these up and that she had created different identities for Centrelink but he signed the papers). That is, the Applicant cannot be said to have been ignorant of the offences planned and prepared by his wife but his evidence suggests he participated in the offending conduct willingly and freely with the understanding that his conduct was against the law. The Tribunal also notes that some of the offending, including the kidnapping and the firearms offences, did not involve the Applicant 's spouse. Thus, the fact that the Applicant is no longer in that relationship does not minimise, in the Tribunal's view, the risk of reoffending.
10. The Applicant states that he pleaded guilty to the kidnapping offence because he had already served the time and his release would have been quicker. The Applicant 's representative refers to the Applicant 's low IQ and questioned the Applicant 's ability to enter a plea. The Applicant submits that the circumstances of the offending are relevant to determining the objective seriousness of the offending and the weight to be given to it. The Tribunal is mindful, firstly, that the Applicant was legally represented and there is an agreed statement of facts, which would suggest that the Applicant was aware of, and agreed with, the information before the court. Secondly, information about the Applicant 's personal circumstances, including his ability to enter a plea, was before the court. The Tribunal is satisfied that these matters were taken into account when the Applicant was convicted and when the sentence was imposed.
11. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he intends to seek treatment for his mental health and will make arrangements once he is released from detention. That is, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that at present, there are firm plans in place for the Applicant to undergo treatment for mental health.
12. The Tribunal has considered a psychiatric assessment report by Dr Tagkalidis dated 19 January 2023. The report refers to the Applicant 's background, developmental history and past sexual abuse. It is stated that the Applicant reported daily alcohol use which ceased in 2019, and past drug use. The report refers to intact cognition and reasonable insight. Dr Tagkalidis concludes that the Applicant is currently suffering from a chronic dysthymic Disorder (persistent depressive disorder) and complex PTDS with associated personality disruption of an antisocial and borderline nature. It is stated that past polysubstance abuse has resolved in recent years. The Applicant is reported to be vulnerable to future major depressive episodes. It is stated that he is of low intelligence with significant learning difficulties. Dr Tagkalidis concludes that the Applicant 's prognosis remains poor and will be so for the foreseeable future and that he will struggle in any relationship, potential workplace setting and in life in general.
13. The Tribunal has had regard to a report by Rebecca Geddes, psychologist, dated 25 May 2022. The report outlines the Applicant 's personal and relationship history. It is stated that the Applicant has a history of methamphetamine use and took part in a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and denied recent use of illicit substances.
14. The report refers to the diagnosis of PTSD and states that the Applicant had experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression. It is stated that the Applicant reported the presence of paranoia and there is history of self-harm. The report states that there is evidence of intellectual difficulties, a marked risk of experiencing emotional and behavioural difficulties and notable elevation in the domains of negative affect, suicidal ideation, significant potential for social detachment, discomfort in close relationships, impulsivity, sensation - seeking, recklessness and disregard for authority. The report offers a risk assessment, noting the protective factors and states that the Applicant has medium high risk / needs with respect to general offending. It is stated that the area of psychological concern is mental disorder and other areas include finances, employment, leisure and emotional personal. The report recommends further treatment to modify cognitive distortions and antisocial attitudes and beliefs.
15. The Tribunal has also had regard to a report by Mavis Berman, prepared in November 2011, who states that the Applicant has had 'a bad start in life' and has made concerted efforts to rehabilitate himself.
16. There is before the Tribunal a psychologist's report prepared by Meg Perkins dated 8 July 2009. Ms Perkins states that the Applicant appears to be suffering from an intellectual disability and his IQ score indicates mental retardation and a functional level of a 6-7-year-old. It is stated that the Applicant 's brain function is at 2nd percentile (indicating that 98% of people would be more capable). It is stated that the Applicant may be intelligent enough to be a criminal's 'offsider'. Ms Perkins observes that the Applicant may be suffering from schizophrenia affecting the functioning of his brain. Ms Perkins states that the Applicant has a significant intellectual disability which prevents him from functioning as an independent adult in the society. He has committed offences but in association with another person who had the ability to organise and plan the crime.
17. The Tribunal has considered a report by Mr John Taylor prepared in October 2003 which refers to the Applicant having mild intellectual handicap in the domains of verbal scale IQ, performance scale IQ and full-scale IQ, with the IQ score of 69 (bottom 2%). The report states that the Applicant was suffering from a mental illness at the time the offences were committed and an appropriate psychiatric treatment over 12 months or more would reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It is stated that this assessment would be significantly affected by the Applicant 's ability to resolve his substance abuse and severe emotional disturbance.
18. The Tribunal has considered a statement from Lee Johnson who states that the Applicant is not a violent person and will not be a risk to the community. Mr Johnson states that the Applicant 's partner took advantage of him. Mr Johnson states that returning to the UK would be harmful to the Applicant 's mental health given the length of time the ap has spent in Australia and his diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia, affecting his normal functioning. Ms MH provided a statement which is substantially similar to the statement by Mr Johnson.
19. In his own statements to the Tribunal dated 8 March and 11 February 2025 the Applicant states that he appreciates the seriousness of his past actions and takes responsibility for his behaviour. The Applicant refers to his life in Australia, stating that his family, identity and relationships are in Australia. The Applicant states that he believes himself to be an Australian citizen and to be of Aboriginal heritage. The Applicant refers to his deep and loving relationship and an 'unwavering commitment' to his children and in particular his daughter who, the Applicant claims, relies on him for emotional support, love and guidance. The Applicant states that separation from daughter caused emotional and financial hardship for his family and reuniting with them is crucial for their well-being. The Applicant states that he has taken steps towards rehabilitation and wants to be a law-abiding person.
20. The Tribunal has also been provided with the Applicant 's IHMS records and other materials.
21. The Applicant referred in oral evidence to his difficult childhood, stating he was molested by family members and at school. He states that he started using drugs at the age of 14 to forget about the past. The Applicant states that he received counselling which helped 'a little bit'. The Applicant told the Tribunal he has not used drugs since 2016 and had completed a rehabilitation program and a number of courses and addressed his mental health.
22. In oral evidence the Applicant 's long term friend Ms R spoke about the Applicant 's good character, stating the evidence in relation to his offending was 'circumstantial' and his offending does not represent who he is. Ms R refers to the Applicant being easily led and influenced by others. The Applicant 's daughter Ms AH provided statements to the Tribunal supporting her father, referring to his past experiences and mental health. She refers to his relationship with his young daughter. In oral evidence Ms AH confirmed her support for her father, being 'family'. She stated that she is aware of his offending and also of her father's mental health issues. She states that in recent years their relationship has grown stronger. Ms AH states that she has accommodation in Cairns where the Applicant and her younger sister can stay, and she said she could help her father in finding employment. The Applicant 's aunt Ms MH also gave oral and written evidence about the Applicant 's circumstances and spoke about the difficult circumstances of his upbringing. She referred to the Applicant not being a violent person, stated that she does not like guns and states that he would not hurt anyone and is not a risk to others. Ms MH stated that the Applicant would have no support in England and his family here would be devastated. Ms MH said that there are job opportunities for the Applicant , and he wants to lead a normal life with his children. Ms MH states that the past offending occurred because of the Applicant 's ex-wife who was 'manipulative' and he is now capable of leading a normal life without offending. She also referred to the Applicant 's mental health.
23. The Applicant spoke about his desire to move to Queensland (if the parole allows him to relocate) and to see his daughter, and also to obtain a job. However, the Applicant 's evidence is that he held jobs in the past so that the availability of employment is unlikely, in the Tribunal's view, to act as a strong disincentive to future offending. Neither will the Applicant 's residence in any particular area.
24. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he will not commit any more offences because he is not with his wife anymore and because he has promised his daughter he would not reoffend. The Tribunal does not find that undertaking persuasive. This is because many of the offences did not involve the Applicant 's wife and the Applicant concedes that some of the offending, including the serious kidnapping offence and the firearm possession offending, had no links with his wife. As for the promise the Applicant claims to have made to his daughter, the Tribunal does not consider this would form a strong incentive for the Applicant to avoid reoffending.
25. It is significant, in the Tribunal's view, that the Applicant had previously had a visa cancelled and the cancellation was revoked in 2016. At that time the Applicant signed a document confirming his understanding that his visa may again be cancelled. That is, the Applicant was already put on notice that his offending may lead to the cancellation of his visa and his removal from Australia. Despite that, the Applicant had re-offended in 2019. In the Tribunal's view, that indicates either the Applicant 's significant disregard for the Australian law or his inability and / or unwillingness to abstain from criminal conduct. The frequency of the Applicant 's past offending also points, in the Tribunal's view, to his unwillingness or inability to abide by the law.
26. The Applicant claims that there was a gap in his offending between 2015 and 2019 showing that he has rehabilitated. However, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the Applicant was incarcerated between September 2016 and August 2017 so that the period of not offending was a fairly brief one of about two years. The Tribunal does not consider that period to a significant one to establish the Applicant 's rehabilitation, particularly given his engagement in a serious offence in 2019.
27. The Tribunal has given considerable weight to the most recent reports prepared by Ms Geddes and Dr Tagkalidis. Ms Geddes refers to a medium risk of reoffending while Dr Tagkalidis refers to the Applicant 's poor prognosis. In the Tribunal's view, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the Applicant has achieved meaningful rehabilitation and while there is some evidence that the Applicant has abstained from illicit substances recently, there is no evidence that he had addressed his mental health issues and taken meaningful steps to counter the intellectual disability, which may have also contributed to his past offending.
28. It is of significant concern to the Tribunal that the Applicant appears to have no insight into his behaviour, as he persistently denies any wrong-doing and continues to blame others. He blames his wife for the Centrelink fraud and drug offences, and he also claims that the kidnapping offence was committed by others who 'brought trouble to him'. The Tribunal acknowledges the various reports noted above which suggests that the Applicant would have been incapable of organising or planning the offending, however, the fact that he was convicted indicates that the Applicant 's commission of the offences has been established. The Tribunal is unpersuaded by the Applicant s' denials and has formed the view that the Applicant lacks insight into his conduct.
29. The Applicant 's representative refers to the Applicant 's low IQ and being easily led. Submissions have been made about the Applicant 's inability to plan and execute offending. The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence in the various reports concerning the Applicant 's IQ and other evidence concerning his personal circumstances. As noted elsewhere, the Tribunal cannot go behind the convictions and the fact that the Applicant has been convicted of multiple offences, despite his level of IQ, indicates that the Applicant was found to have met the elements of the offending. Significantly, if it is suggested that the Applicant engaged in offending because of his low IQ and because he is easily influenced, that evidence might also suggests that the Applicant 's IQ and personal characteristics may result in him being easily influenced by others (even if not his former partner who longer has a relationship with the Applicant ) and that he may again engage in criminal or anti-social conduct to meet his needs.
30. The Tribunal remains unconvinced about the Applicant 's rehabilitation. As noted above, the Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant lacks insight into his conduct, having denied much of the wrong-doing, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has the ability or the wherewithal to avoid similar conduct, or bad associations that may lead to future reoffending.
31. The Tribunal has formed the view that there remains at least a moderate risk of reoffending. This is consistent with the professional views expressed in the reports summarised above. Ms Geddes refers to the medium risk of reoffending while Dr Tagkalidis refers to the Applicant 's poor prognosis.
32. Having regard to the nature of the Applicant 's past convictions, which involved violence towards others, drug offending and storage of firearms, and the Tribunal's view that there remains at least a moderate risk of reoffending, the Tribunal has formed the view that the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against the revocation.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant engaged in family violence offending. The Applicant concedes that he was subject to Family Violence Orders around 2011 and 2016 but states that his wife 'put the order' against him and made things up and the magistrate did not accept her evidence. The Applicant claims there was never any violence between them, and they have not lived together since 2016.
2. The Applicant does not have any convictions in relation to family violence and any evidence relating to the family violence offending has not been tested. The Tribunal does not consider that the Applicant had engaged in family violence. This consideration is neutral.

The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

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

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

1. How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that

   1. Less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

   2. More weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.

   3. The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and / or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The Applicant has been living in Australia since the age of two. He did not begin to offend soon after arriving in Australia. There is little evidence of the Applicant 's positive contribution to the Australian community, although he claims to have been employed in the past.
2. The Applicant stated in the revocation request that he has extensive family in Australia, including his three children, grandchildren, mother, siblings and extended family such as uncles, aunts, cousins and a grandparent. He refers to his relationship with his now ex-wife Sonya, who has been his support in the past.
3. In his February 2025 statement to the Tribunal the Applicant refers to the 'profound' effect of his absence on the extended family. In his statement dated 11 February 2025 the Applicant states that he wants to support his daughter and states that prolonged separation has caused considerable emotional and financial hardship to his family. He states that reuniting with his family is crucial for their well-being. The Applicant refers to his close relationship with his daughter SL and states that he makes an effort to be involved, outlining the efforts he has made to arrange an in person visit and to arrange support for his daughter. The Applicant states that his commitment to children includes his other children. The Applicant provided a copy of the Parentage Test Report confirming his paternity of his daughter SL and documents relating to a study concerning the effects of family separation.
4. The Applicant referred to having a good relationship with his two older children, AH and J and he refers to regular communication with them by phone.
5. In oral evidence, the Applicant spoke about the difficulties and expense in seeing his daughter SL. The Applicant spoke about arranging speech therapy for the child (which he claims no one else could organise) and the expense of supporting his child. The Applicant states that the child lives with her mother but if he is able to remain in Australia, he will have the custody of her on weekends. The Applicant states that if he is removed, he will not be able to communicate with the child (due to her young age) and due to financial constraints and visa issues, the mother will not be able to bring the child to the UK.
6. The Applicant 's daughter Ms AH provided statements to the Tribunal supporting her father, referring to his past experiences and mental health. She refers to his relationship with his young daughter. In oral evidence Ms AH confirmed her support for her father, being 'family. She stated that she is aware of his offending and also his mental health issues. She states that in recent years their relationship has grown stronger. Ms AH states that she has accommodation in Cairns where the Applicant and her younger sister can stay. She refers to a close relationship between the Applicant and his young daughter and the needs of the child to be with her father. Ms AH also referred to her own relationship with her sister, stating she will continue to have that relationship with her sister whether or not her father is present, but she could not replace her father in terms of emotional support. Ms AH referred to the devastating effect of losing her father on her and her young sister. Ms AH states that her father has been living in Australia his whole life and she is very concerned about him being deported as he would not have any support there. She states that she believes her father can contribute to the community and she could help him find a job. She states that she has identified herself as being Aboriginal in various settings.
7. The Applicant 's former partner Ms CC provided a statement dated 4 February 2025 expressing concern about the Applicant 's detention and possible deportation, stating it would have a devastating impact on their daughter SL. Ms CC states that she struggles to support the child financially and this has limited their ability to visit the Applicant in person. CC states that the Applicant has been actively involved with their daughter, providing emotional support and maintaining a strong bond.
8. In oral evidence Ms CC referred to the Applicant being a good father and a good relationship he has with his young daughter. She spoke about the hardship to the child if the Applicant was not available, as she has a good relationship with him and Ms CC also spoke about the relationship between the child and her sister. Ms CC spoke about the financial support the Applicant has provided to her family.
9. The Applicant 's aunt MH spoke about the Applicant not being a risk to others, his relationship with his family and the hardships that they would experience if the Applicant was not in Australia. Ms MH also said that the Applicant 'wants to have a nice quiet life' and would find it very difficult to establish himself in the UK.
10. The Applicant 's long term friend Ms R referred to a close relationship between the Applicant and his children, and the support he provides to his children, stating that they would be affected if the Applicant was not present in their lives. She refers to the Applicant 's daughter AH being 'devastated' and 'traumatised' by separation from her father.
11. The Applicant also suggests that he has provided financial support to his former partner to support Ms SL and Ms CC confirmed that regular support, stating that the money is used for daily needs. There is no documentary evidence of such support, but the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant does provide such support to his family (he claims through the sale of cigarettes). However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the family would experience financial hardship if that support was no longer available.
12. The Tribunal accepts that, given the length of the Applicant 's stay in Australia, he has formed significant family ties in this country. The Tribunal accepts that his family members are likely to be permanent residents or citizens of Australia and have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there may be detrimental impact on the Applicant 's immediate family in Australia, including his children, grandchildren and former partner, if the Applicant was to leave Australia.
13. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that 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.
3. The Applicant has adult children in Australia and a minor daughter born in November 2019. In his submissions to the delegate the Applicant refers to having a close relationship with this child and regular contact. The Applicant submits that removing him from Australia means he would never see his child again and that would adversely affect his daughter. The Applicant states that this child is at risk from her mother, noting the mother's substance abuse, and lives with a grandmother. The Applicant states that during his incarceration he engaged legal assistance to ensure his daughter's safety (the child has been removed from the mother and is cared for by the grandmother).
4. The Applicant provided a number of statements to the Tribunal concerning his close relationship with his daughter, the opportunity to see her in early 2025 and the financial support he has provided for his daughter's treatment and other expenses, as well as his commitment to ongoing financial support. The Applicant refers to regular contact with his daughter. The Applicant also refers to his bond with this older daughter and states that his absence has had a 'profound and lasting impact' on his children and extended family. The Applicant provided to the Tribunal several general publications about trauma and psychological damage caused by separation of children from parents. (The Tribunal is mindful that a significant period of separation occurred due to the Applicant 's convictions and incarcerations rather than any visa issues).
5. The Applicant 's oral evidence toe the Tribunal is that he is the only person who has been able to arrange medical support for his daughter SL. He states that he has provided financial support to the child, and he is the only male role model for the child. The Tribunal accepts that evidence, although as noted elsewhere, the Tribunal notes that there is no evidence that the child will be adversely affected if the financial support will not be provided by the Applicant .
6. Ms CC in her statement to the Tribunal states that the potential deportation of the Applicant would be devastating for their young daughter, who has been deprived of an in-person relationship with her father. Ms CC states that she has 'struggled' to maintain her own visa due to her criminal history and it would be difficult to facilitate in-person contact between the Applicant and his daughter and impossible if she cannot travel overseas. In oral evidence Ms CC also stated that the Applicant is a good father and has a good relationship with the young child and they speak daily. The child expects her father to return home as she does not know he is in jail. Ms CC confirmed her belief that the Applicant 's presence is crucial to the child's development, and she states that the Applicant is a good man who deserves to come home.
7. The Applicant 's daughter Ms AH in her evidence also referred to the close relationship between the Applicant and his young daughter, stating that she can offer accommodation to both.
8. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has a close and meaningful relationship with his young daughter SL. The Tribunal accepts that their capacity for personal contact may be limited, at best, if the Applicant resides overseas and the quality of their relationship may be diminished if they are only able to maintain electronic contact. The Tribunal accepts that it may be in the best interest of the daughter, SL if the Applicant 's visa is reinstated. The Tribunal gives this significant weight in favour of the revocation.
9. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his son has two minor children, but he does not have a good relationship with them. There is no evidence, and no suggestion, that the Applicant and these grandchildren have any meaningful relationship or that the Applicant has ever had any parental role in relation to these grandchildren. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that the best interests of these two grandchildren would be adversely affected by the Applicant 's visa issues and removal from Australia if his visa remains cancelled.
10. The Applicant spoke about his relationship with his grandchild M, stating that he has a good relationship with that child and last saw him a few months ago. There is very little other evidence concerning the Applicant's relationship with that grandchild. However, the Tribunal is also prepared to accept that it is in the best interests of the Applicant's grandchild M to maintain a relationship with the Applicant. The Tribunal gives the best interests of that child some weight in favour of revocation.
11. The Tribunal finds that the best interests of the children weigh significantly in favour of revocation.

1. Sub-clause 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction sets out the government's view in relation to community expectations:

The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

2. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction 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.
3. Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:

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.

4. Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[5] which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant 's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Instead, the Tribunal is to be guided by the Government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[6]
5. Paragraph 8.5(2) contains a statement of the Government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
6. The Tribunal has formed the view that, given the seriousness and repeated nature of the Applicant's offending, the community expectations would weigh very heavily against the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen...

1. The Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding. The Applicant has not made any claims that could indicate that non-refoulement obligations arise in this case. The cancellation of the visa would not result in the Applicant being detained indefinitely but the Tribunal acknowledges that there may be a period of detention before the Applicant can be removed from Australia, should his visa remain cancelled.
2. The cancellation of the visa under s. 501 means that the Applicant will not be entitled to be granted another visa and will not be able to return to Australia to be with his family or for any other reason.
3. The Tribunal is of the view that consideration weighs in favour of the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

a) the non-citizen's age and health; > > b) whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.

2. The Applicant is 58 years of age. He refers to having an intellectual disability and PTSD. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant refers to having a chronic sub-syndromal depressive state, chronic dysthymic disorder, low self-esteem, traumatisation, post-traumatic stress disorder, complex PTSD, early development traumatisation affecting personality development. The Applicant presented a Patient Summary which refers to his conditions as back pain, substance abuse, PTSD, hypertension and GORD. It also refers to the Applicant being an Aboriginal. The Applicant also refers to mental health issues. The Tribunal accepts the medical evidence in relation to the Applicant .
3. The Applicant had lived in Australia for most of his life, having arrived as a very young child. In his revocation request the Applicant states that he has lived in Australia his entire life, has his children, immediate and extended family in Australia and no supports in England. He has never visited England. He states that his family would not be able to live with him due to the financial strain. The Tribunal accepts that if the visa remains cancelled, the Applicant is likely to be separated from his family in Australia.
4. The Applicant refers to being illiterate and states that he was molested in primary school and has a claim under the National Redress scheme (and a copy of determination not to approve the application for redress because of his visa status), and a civil claim against his school. The Applicant presented evidence of his communication in relation to the compensation claim. There is no evidence as to whether that process is still ongoing and whether the Applicant will be able to pursue this claim if he was residing outside of Australia.
5. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he would have no income and no support in England and would have nowhere to stay. The Applicant states in his written evidence that if he was 'sent back home', he would never see his kids again. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may not be able to return to Australia to be with his family if his visa remains cancelled. In the revocation request the Applicant states that has no one in his home country and has never lived there, having come to Australia at the age of 18 months. The Applicant also stated that he would not be eligible to any benefits in the UK for some time and he would have nowhere to stay. The Tribunal accepts that evidence
6. Given the length of the Applicant 's stay in Australia and his limited (if any) links to his home country, the extent of his supports in Australia and absence of any supports in the UK, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience hardship if he is removed from Australia, particularly in the initial period of resettlement and re-establishment himself in the UK. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3.1 of Direction 110 directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.'

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that any Australian business would be impacted if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. This consideration is neutral.

1. The Applicant stated in his revocation request that if his visa remains cancelled, he will not see his children, and that would impact his children. The best interests of the Applicant 's youngest child and grandchild, who are minors, are addressed above. The Tribunal accepts, as noted above, that if the Applicant 's visa remains cancelled, he is likely to be separated from his family in Australia.
2. The Applicant refers to his poor mental health and as noted above, the Tribunal accepts the evidence concerning the Applicant 's health.
3. The Applicant refers to his Aboriginality. While the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may genuinely believe himself to be of Aboriginal descent and has represented himself to others as such, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has rejected the Applicant 's claim of Aboriginal descent.
4. The Applicant refers to his personal characteristics and low IQ and claims that due to these factors, his offending and the future risk of reoffending should be given less weight. The weight that the Tribunal has determined to be given to different considerations is set out below.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has a lengthy criminal record and that he does not pass the character test. The Tribunal has considered if there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
2. The Tribunal has formed the view that there is a medium risk of reoffending. This is primarily based on the Tribunal's view that the Applicant lacks insight for his offending and also because of his personal characteristics (including low IQ, being susceptible to influences and mental health) which may not have been effectively addressed or overcome. The Tribunal finds that the offences in which the Applicant had previously engaged were very serious and if the Applicant were to reoffend, there may be a significant risk to the community. The Tribunal has determined that the protection of the community weighs very heavily against the revocation and gives that consideration considerable weight.
3. The Tribunal has also given considerable weight to the expectations of the community which, the Tribunal has determined, also weigh against the revocation.
4. The Tribunal finds that the best interests of minor children weigh heavily in favour of the revocation. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has extensive ties to Australia (and no ties in the UK) and that there could be significant impediment caused to the Applicant and his Australian family members in Australia if the Applicant was removed. These considerations weigh heavily in favour of the revocation. The legal consequences of the decision also weigh in favour of the revocation as the cancellation of the visa would preclude the Applicant from being able to return to Australia.
5. Other considerations are neutral. In particular, the Applicant has not committed family violence offending and there is no evidence of any impact on a business.
6. As the Tribunal has found that there is a moderate risk of the Applicant committing further offences and given the serious nature of the offending and the risk to the community if the Applicant was to reoffend, the Tribunal has determined that the protection of the community and the expectations of the community considerations should be given greatest weight and that they outweigh other considerations.
7. Having considered all the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Transitional (Permanent) visa.

[1] Heathcote and MIMA (Migration) [2025] ARTA 131.

[2] Cowgill v MICMSMA [2024] AATA 729.

[3] Helmbright v MICMSMA (No 2) [2021] FCA 647.

[4] See R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [115].

[5] [2019] FCAFC 185 ('FYBR').

[6] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.