Irving v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction In this case, Jia Le Geng, a Chinese national challenges by way of judicial review a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel his visa and declare him to be an excluded person. The Minister has done so on the basis of convictions for sexual assault and related offences against Mr Jia which have led him to form the view that Mr Jia is not a person of good character and that the seriousness of the circumstances and the national interest justify his exclusion from Australia. This view is formed in spite of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, substantially upheld on review by this Court, that Mr Jia is, notwithstanding his convictions, a person of good character. That decision had regard to the particular circumstances surrounding the convictions and the strong support and evidence as to Mr Jia's character from a number of Australian residents. The challenge to the Minister's decision raises the question whether it was affected or induced by actual bias and whether he acted upon a wrong view of the relevant law. It also raises a question whether in light of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision the Minister had the authority, acting on essentially the same facts and circumstances, to effectively override that decision. The case is, in my opinion, a very sad one. It is, however, to be determined by reference to the relevant legal principles. Its outcome does not reflect any view as to the correctness or otherwise of the assessment of Mr Jia's character by the Minister or the Tribunal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Jia Le Geng is a Chinese national who arrived in Australia on a student visa on 17 August 1991. On 12 September 1991 he applied for refugee status in Australia and for a Domestic Protection (Temporary) Entry Permit (784). On 30 November 1992 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (as he was then designated) refused Mr Jia's application for refugee status. Mr Jia applied for review by the Refugee Status Review Committee of that decision and following a recommendation from the Committee on 17 March 1993 the Minister's delegate again determined on 17 May 1993 that he was not a refugee. On 8 September 1993 Mr Jia was detained in custody under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)as an illegal entrant and on 9 September 1993 requested an extension of time to lodge an application for an entry permit/reconsideration/review. He was released from custody on conditions including employment restrictions and a bond of $5,000 on 20 September 1993. He sought a review by the Minister of the refusal of his refugee status application. On 24 September 1993 a delegate of the Minister ordered that he be deported from Australia pursuant to s 60(1) of the Act. In October 1993 Mr Jia undertook employment under a false name, and on 19 October 1993 was taken into custody for breaching a condition of his release in relation to employment. The $5,000 bond was forfeited. He was charged with breaches of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). On 1 November 1993, the Minister made a statement in relation to Chinese nationals in Australia announcing special criteria for permanent entry permits (here referred to as Special Entry Permits). On 19 November 1993 a Custody Review Officer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs decided that Mr Jia met threshold criteria for an application for a Special Entry Permit. He was released from custody on his undertaking to abide by conditions of release. In December 1993, Mr Jia was arrested and charged with offences of sexual assault and deprivation of liberty of a woman, You Li, with whom he had previously had a relationship. While awaiting trial on these charges he was convicted on 11 January 1994, in respect of the earlier illegal employment, of performing work while an illegal entrant without permission contrary to s 83(2) of the Act. He was also convicted in relation to that matter, of using another person's tax file number in a manner connecting it with that person's identity contrary to s 8WB(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). He was fined $600 and costs in relation to the convictions but served a period in custody in lieu of paying the fines. On 18 February 1994 Mr Jia was granted permission to work in Australia. In April 1994 he applied for a Special Entry Permit. On 11 August 1994 he was advised by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that he had been granted a Processing Entry Permit allowing him to maintain his legal immigration status in Australia whilst his substantive application for a Special Entry Permit was processed. In February 1995, Mr Jia was brought to trial on the charges laid against him in December 1993. He was convicted after trial on four counts. They were, in substance, as follows: 1. That on 21 November 1993 at Northbridge he unlawfully assaulted You Li and thereby did her bodily harm. 2. That on 29 November 1993 at Wembley he unlawfully detained You Li. 3. That on 30 November 1993 at Wembley he made a threat to unlawfully harm You Li. 4. That on 30 November 1993 he sexually penetrated You Li. He was sentenced to a total of six years and three months after credit for three months spent in custody at the Canning Vale Remand Centre. On the sexual penetration charge he was sentenced to four years and nine months after allowing credit for time spent in custody. On the charge of threatening to do unlawful harm he was sentenced to one and a half years cumulative on the sentence for sexual penetration. On the unlawful detention charge he was sentenced to one and a half years which was made concurrent with the other sentences and on the charge of unlawful assault he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment also concurrent with the other sentences. In his sentencing remarks, Walsh J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, said it was clear that Mr Jia had assaulted You Li on 21 November without any justification or excuse and with considerable force. Although he had sought to minimise that during his evidence, it was the view of the Judge that he should be sentenced on the basis that he applied considerable force when he struck her thereby causing her to go to the ground and at the very least leaving her with a bruise to her buttock. The Judge remarked that it may be that she was fortunate that no further injury of any substance was inflicted. The remaining three offences occurred about eight or nine days later in the early hours of the morning when Mr Jia detained You Li for a considerable period of time over some hours and during that time threatened her with harm and sexually penetrated her without her consent. Referring to the background of the offences the sentencing Judge said: "It is clear from the evidence adduced before the jury that you had an association with You Li during 1993 which developed initially into one of love and affection between both of you. Subsequently, however, it became clear on the evidence that You Li determined that she no longer wished to continue with the relationship. It's apparent that difficulties had been caused over, amongst things, (sic) gambling and moneys said to have been taken and no doubt your emotional state was compounded by worry over immigration and by two periods of detention. Be that as it may, in my view you became obsessed with her and were not prepared to accept her choice to not have anything further to do with you. Against that background you detained her in the flat, threatened to harm her and sexually penetrated her. In relation to the sexual penetration, whilst you did not inflict any injury to her as such, nonetheless that does not mitigate your actions having regard to the fact that you obtained her consent, to use the word "consent" in an inept way, by reason of a threat. "By consent" - I withdraw that; "submission" would be the more appropriate word - by reason of the threat that you made to her, and I accept that she was in genuine fear of you." The sentencing judge said in the circumstances a substantial custodial sentence must be imposed to deter others in the community who might be tempted to treat women in the way that Mr Jia had done which would not be tolerated in any civilised community. Looking at the positive side of Mr Jia's background, the sentencing judge said: "Having said that, there is much in your background to your credit. You were educated in China and obtained a degree, you came to this country as a refugee and it is clear that within the limits of your capabilities you worked hard and endeavoured to make this country your home. I have emphasised that you were under a great deal of emotional strain at the time by reason of the difficulties you had with immigration, compounded with the obsessive attitude you had to your former partner. Having said all that, at the end of the day I am still required to impose a substantial custodial sentence. However, because of the particular circumstances of this case, I impose a sentence which I would have thought is at the lower end of the scale for these types of offences." Mr Jia appealed against the convictions to the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal and on 4 August 1995 the appeal was dismissed. On 18 August 1995 a delegate of the Minister refused Mr Jia's outstanding application for a Special (Permanent) Entry Permit. Mr Jia applied to the Migration Internal Review Office for a review of that decision. Following review, on 22 November 1995, his case was reassessed and on 1 December 1995 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a Transitional (Permanent) Visa or a Resident Return Visa. Mr Jia then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision. His application was made on 8 January 1996 and the hearing proceeded before Deputy President Barnett on 25 and 26 June 1996. On 23 July 1996 the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted it to the Minister with a direction that Mr Jia qualified for obtaining a Transitional (Permanent) Visa on the basis that he was a person of good character. In his decision, the Deputy President said, applying Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 39 ALR 649 that the Tribunal did have the power to consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence for the purpose of determining what weight and gravity should be attributed to the conviction as one of the relevant factors in assessing whether an applicant for a visa was "of good character" for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958. He described Mr Jia as a 32 year old man from a Chinese cultural background who arrived in Australia after his involvement with the Chinese Democratic Movement and the Tiananmen Square events of 1989. He commenced a post-graduate diploma in chemistry at Curtin University on 17 August 1991. The Tribunal found that as a result of his move to Australia he was isolated from his family, social support systems and Chinese "norms" of behaviour. The Tribunal described Mr Jia's relationship with You Li as "complex and bizarre" and "intensely sexual and emotional". The Tribunal accepted Mr Jia's evidence that You Li used his telephone for long expensive international telephone calls at his expense, despite his frequent objections, and also accepted his evidence about what it described as "her compulsive and irresponsible gambling". On several occasions, it found, she borrowed his money and lost it at the casino until he refused to lend or give any more. She borrowed from other men and Mr Jia felt obliged to repay those loans. The Tribunal accepted that he became quite distraught that he was unable to avoid the constant drain on his funds caused by her compulsive gambling addiction. It also found that in order to acquire funds to support her addiction she involved herself in relationships with men from whom she could borrow money. In May 1993, having received advice from the Minister's delegate which to Mr Jia indicated that his deportation was imminent, he had withdrawn from bank accounts his savings of $11,000 to fund his return to China and to provide money for his father whose health was deteriorating. The money, which he hid in his flat, went missing. Mr Jia subsequently viewed a video of Li You losing large sums of money at the casino on the night that the $11,000 had disappeared. The Tribunal found that "she falsely denied that she had taken the money and pretended that $100 of her own money had also been stolen". Their relationship deteriorated thereafter. They frequently argued about money and about her gambling. Subsequently she moved out of the flat at his request but maintained contact with him and continued a sexual relationship with him. He continued to provide her with money to pay off her gambling debts. The Tribunal found that during the period that Mr Jia was in immigration custody in September 1993, Li You finally admitted to losing his $11,000 at the casino. In the meantime she had moved into a unit occupied by another person, Mr Ian Kerr. Mr Jia felt that his relationship with Li You had developed an ambiguous on/off nature. Following his release Mr Jia, according to the Tribunal, became very jealous, hurt and confused over Li You's relationships with Ian Kerr and with another friend, Mr Ji. On 20 November 1993 he went to collect Li You from the Northbridge Pavilion where she worked only to find that she had arranged for Mr Kerr to collect her. He later met her outside Mr Kerr's flat and there was an argument which culminated in him pushing her and as a result of which she fell on to the kerb and bruised her buttock. It was this incident, the Tribunal found, which resulted in the assault conviction. The Tribunal also found that there was an incident between Mr Jia and Mr Ji on 29 November when the two men were involved in a struggle in the presence of Li You who "continued to play an ambiguous role, hoping to maintain a relationship with both men". The Tribunal's findings in relation to the events constituting the sexual assault and related charges of 29 November 1993 are as follows: "Later that evening the applicant went for a walk and met up with Li You, the two of them went back to his flat. The two of them talked about matters including Li You's gambling. The applicant and Li You then went to the applicant's car, drove it to the Herdsman Hotel and they had sex while parked in the carpark. The applicant insists that Li You consented to this and that they then drove back to his flat. Li You later claimed that she had not consented to the sex in the car park and that he had forced her to return to his flat. These charges were denied by the applicant had (sic) he was found not guilty of any offences in the car park. Once back in the flat they again had sex and again the jury found him not guilty of rape. However, in the early hours of the morning he refused to take her home and this refusal was the subject of the unlawful detention conviction. This incident occurred whilst the applicant's flatmate, Brad, was in an adjoining room. Li You had become very upset at the applicant's refusal to take her home, a distance of 200 metres and she called out loudly and kicked at Brad's bedroom door until he came out. She then went home by herself. Later in the day the applicant walked to Li You's flat to find that Li You was not there. On the way back to his flat, Mr Ji and Li You drove up to the applicant. Mr Ji parked the car and Li You got out and came and spoke to the applicant. Li You then went back to Mr Ji's car and told Mr Ji that he could leave. As a result of a threat to unlawfully harm her (of which the applicant was convicted) Li You accompanied the applicant back to his flat again. Once at the flat, the applicant and Li You engaged in sexual conduct which was interrupted by the arrival of the police. After a police officer questioned Li You outside the flat she complained that the applicant had just raped her before the police arrived. It was then that she also complained about the incident in the Hotel car park. The applicant was later acquitted of rape in the car park but convicted of rape and unlawful detention in the flat." The Tribunal did not accept Li You as a witness of credit saying that she was manipulative and argumentative and that some of her evidence to the Tribunal was inherently unbelievable and in conflict with the transcript of her evidence at the criminal trial. The Tribunal found that she was clearly lying. Mr Jia on the other hand was found to present as an intelligent person with a good reputation amongst his peers and friends except his conduct at the time of the offences. Since his conviction he had had a record of good conduct in prison. He was not required to participate in the sex offenders' treatment program because his offence was considered to be a "situation" offence but he did do a "control of aggression course". His job prospects were found to be reasonably good. The migration offences relating to illegal employment and the use of another person's tax file number in connection with that employment were not raised by the Minister before the Tribunal as evidence of lack of good character and the Tribunal gave them little weight. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Jia's past criminal conduct was all related to one stage of his relationship and did not indicate a long term tendency to violence, criminal conduct or antisocial sexual behaviour. Excellent character evidence was given for him by "an impressive cast of witnesses". The Tribunal found that for approximately twelve months after the offences, while he was free on bail awaiting trial, Mr Jia obtained legal employment, worked industriously, lived quietly and without trouble, formed a loving and respectful relationship with another woman and her family and paid back to his friend the $5,000 bond which had been forfeited. It said he had proved to be a good member of Australian society during this period and retained the respect of his friends and supporters. The Tribunal noted that two years and eight months had elapsed since the commission of the offences. This it characterised as a significant period against which to assess a short period of atypical criminal conduct in an otherwise well behaved person. It found there was no significant likelihood of undue harm to the Australian community of Mr Jia reoffending or engaging in further unacceptable conduct in Australia. Despite the fact that Mr Jia had been convicted of serious offences, after considering all the circumstances of his past criminal conduct and viewing it in the light of all the other evidence relating to his character, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he was a person who was not of good character as that phrase is used in s 501 of the Migration Act. Having made that assessment the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Minister with a direction that Mr Jia qualified for a Transitional (Permanent) Visa on the basis that he was of good character. The Minister appealed to the Federal Court from the Tribunal's decision and on 20 December 1996 Carr J ordered the decision to be set aside and remitted to an identically constituted Tribunal for further consideration. The basis of his decision however was limited to a finding that in certain respects the Minister was denied procedural fairness. His Honour found there was nothing in the Tribunal's reasons to suggest that it had misdirected itself about the meaning of "good character" or that it had approached the task of considering whether it was satisfied that Mr Jia was not of good character in any manner inconsistent with what was said by the Full Court in Irving v Minister of State for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Fed C of A, Full Court, 30 July 1996, unrep). The setting aside of the Tribunal's decision by Carr J depended on two elements of procedural unfairness. The first was that the Tribunal relied to a significant extent on a finding of a relationship between Li You and Mr Ji, whereas in the course of the hearing the impression was created that it did not regard that matter as of any relevance to its decision. The second element of procedural unfairness arose out of the Tribunal's reference to a Corrective Services file which had not been made available to the Minister for consideration of its content in order to enable the Minister to address that content at the hearing. Having regard to the width of the Minister's grounds of appeal against the Tribunal's decision Carr J referred to the outcome as a "fairly limited degree of success on the applicant's part". On 14 March 1997, the matter having been remitted to the Tribunal, Deputy President Barnett, in accordance with the findings of Carr J, heard evidence from Mr Ji who was cross-examined and also accepted into evidence the relevant Corrective Services file on which neither party made submissions. The Tribunal came to the same conclusions and again set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Minister with a direction that Mr Jia qualified for obtaining a Transitional (Permanent) Visa on the basis that he is of good character. In that month also Mr Jia was released on parole. On or about 14 April 1997 officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs prepared a background brief for the use of the Minister as required. It was not prepared under his instructions. The first page of the brief in block letters contained the following text: ISSUE: PRINT AND ELECTRONIC MEDIA HAVE REPORTED THE DECISION BY THE AAT THAT A NON CITIZEN SENTENCED TO 6 AND A HALF YEARS JAIL FOR OFFENCES INCLUDING RAPE, ASSAULT OCCASIONING BODILY HARM, THREATENING TO DO UNLAWFUL HARM AND UNLAWFUL DETENTION IS OF GOOD CHARACTER AND IS TO BE GRANTED A PERMANENT VISA. TALKING POINTS: . MOST AUSTRALIANS WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE A 6 AND A HALF YEAR JAIL SENTENCE FOR RAPE WITH A FINDING BY A DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED IS OF GOOD CHARACTER; - JUST FOR GOOD MEASURE MR JIA ALSO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF IMMIGRATION AND TAXATION OFFENCES SINCE ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA IN 1991 AS A STUDENT. . THIS LATEST AAT DECISION HAS ESSENTIALLY REJECTED THE COURT'S FINDING OF CULPABILITY BY FINDING MR JIA'S BEHAVIOUR LEADING TO THE OFFENCES JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF THE RAPE VICTIM'S CONDUCT TOWARDS HIM AND HIS OWN REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE FEELINGS OF JEALOUSY. THE AAT CONCLUDED NOTWITHSTANDING HIS CONVICTIONS THAT HE IS OF GOOD CHARACTER. . I FIND THE LINE OF REASONING TAKEN BY THE AAT BEYOND COMPREHENSION; - AN APPEAL AGAINST THE AAT'S LATEST DECISION IS BEING MADE. - I AM SURE THAT MOST AUSTRALIANS WOULD BE APPALLED THAT MR JIA HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE OF GOOD CHARACTER. . THE GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EMERGING TRENDS FOR TRIBUNALS TO DISCOUNT THE IMPORTANCE THE GOVERNMENT ATTACHES TO CHARACTER ISSUES. I HAVE REFERRED TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION THE HANDLING OF APPEALS AND WHETHER THE DEPORTATION REGIME NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED. I ALSO WILL SOON BE WRITING TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE PRIME MINISTER ABOUT OPTIONS WHICH MIGHT BE TAKEN TO STRENGTHEN DECISIONS TO REFUSE OR TO CANCEL VISAS ON CHARACTER GROUNDS." An alternative version of this brief softened the criticism of the AAT by substituting for it the following words: ". I HAVE DIFFICULTY IN ACCEPTING THE LINE OF REASONING TAKEN BY THE AAT; - A PROTECTIVE APPEAL AGAINST THE AAT'S LATEST DECISION HAS BEEN LODGED - I AM SURE THAT MOST AUSTRALIANS WOULD BE MOST SURPRISED THAT A NON-CITIZEN WITH SUCH CONVICTIONS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE OF GOOD CHARACTER." The text of the rest of the alternative version is the same as the first version. It was an agreed fact between the parties in these proceedings that at the time the background brief was prepared the Minister did hold the following opinions: 1. That most Australians would find it difficult to reconcile a 6 and a half year jail sentence for rape with a finding by a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the person concerned is of good character. 2. That "this latest AAT decision has essentially rejected the court's finding of culpability by finding Mr Jia's behaviour leading to the offences justifiable because of the rape victim's conduct towards him and his own reasonable or unreasonable feelings of jealousy". 3. That "the government is concerned about the emerging trends for tribunals to discount the importance the government attaches to character issues". It is also agreed that the Minister did not publicly express those opinions. Nor did he hold the opinion that the line of reasoning taken by the Tribunal was "beyond comprehension" or that most Australians would be appalled that Mr Jia had been found to be of good character". His opinion at this time was better expressed in the background brief of 24 April 1997 which stated: "I have difficulty in accepting the line of reasoning taken by the AAT....I am sure that most Australians would be surprised that a non-citizen with such convictions has been found to be of good character." On 14 April 1997 the Minister was interviewed on radio 2GB by Clive Robertson. In the course of his interview with Mr Robertson the Minister said: "I'm very unhappy about the way in (sic) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been dealing with numbers of matters involving the Immigration Department in the way in which these discretions have been exercised by members of the Tribunal. Well, I've asked the Joint Committee on Migration of the Parliament to look at the whole question of criminal deportation as to ways and means in which we can strengthen the provisions to have them operating as they, I believe, they were originally intended and as, I think, the public would expect them to operate." The Minister in the course of the interview, expressed disappointment that the Tribunal seemed to be overturning a very large number of cases and that criminal deportation had come down to a point where only about forty or fifty people are in fact deported in any one year. Asked by Mr Robertson whether it was written down anywhere exactly what a person of good character is, the Minister answered: "What we are looking at here is the commission of offences. I don't believe you are of good character if you've committed significant criminal offences involving penal servitude. The law does actually write down that that is the test and it adds another test, of course - we used it in the case of Adams from the Sein Fenn organisation - if you are known to associate with organisations that are involved in criminal activity, you can be found to be of not good character. Asked by Mr Robertson what power he had to overturn the Tribunal's decision and whether he could ask for a report or appeal, the Minister answered: "I'm considering what steps I can take and there are some avenues. One of the suggestions that's been made is that I could in fact grant the visa and then cancel it on character grounds. I have to weigh up whether or not that is a proper course for me to follow and I also have to look at the issue as to what the potential cost might be to the community if it opens up a whole host of other possible appeals to the Federal Court." On 15 April 1997 a "protective" appeal was lodged by the Minister with the Federal Court against the decision of the AAT. On 23 April 1997 the Assistant Secretary of the Department's Migration and Temporary Entry Branch, Mr Rizvi, sent a minute to the Minister setting out options for action following the AAT decision about Mr Jia. Options put to the Minister were: 1. To further appeal to the Federal court on matters of law; or 2. To proceed to visa grant but for you then to decide to intervene and personally cancel the visa under section 501 of the Migration Act on the basis that Mr Jia is not of good character; or 3. To accept the AAT's decision and finalise the assessment of Mr Jia's application. In further discussion of the options and in particular the option of granting the visa and then cancelling it, the minute said: "In any litigation arising from decisions by you to cancel Mr Jia's visa and to declare him an excluded person, you could be called to give evidence and be subject of close scrutiny. You could well be called upon to give evidence about your views as to Mr Jia's character and be subject to cross-examination about the justification of your decisions and to rebut any possibility of grounds of bias or improper purpose being made out." Mr Rizvi concluded in his advice to the Minister that a decision to cancel the visa and declare Mr Jia to be an excluded person would indicate to the community the government's concern about the acceptability of the Tribunal decision in the national interest and reflect its determination that a non-citizen with a history of criminal conduct and an apparent disregard for the law, as in Mr Jia's case, should not remain in Australia. Mr Rizvi added: "However, this course of action would most likely lead to prominent litigation against the Commonwealth involving yourself personally, with a real risk that the Commonwealth would lose." On 23 May Mr Jia was granted a Transitional (Permanent) Visa. The Minister had also instructed Mr Rizvi to prepare a letter to Mr Jia indicating that he wished to personally consider the matter of visa cancellation and the making of a declaration under s 502 of the Migration Act and providing Mr Jia with an opportunity to make a submission in that regard. In the letter dated 26 May 1997 and signed by Roger Neilson, the Director of the Health and Character Section of Mr Rizvi's branch, Mr Jia was advised that the Minister had indicated that he proposed to personally examine whether to cancel the visa under s 501 and declare Mr Jia an excluded person under s 502. It was pointed out that as an excluded person Mr Jia would not be able to seek review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of any decision of the Minister to cancel his visa. It was said that before the Minister considered these questions he wanted to provide Mr Jia with an opportunity to comment. Matters to be taken into account by the Minister were then set out and Mr Jia was invited to comment on them and provide any information which he might consider relevant. In the meantime the Department had prepared a pro forma letter sent to the Minister's office for possible use in responding to correspondence from members of the public concerning the Tribunal decision. Only one copy of that letter was actually sent to anyone. In it the Minister acknowledged his correspondent's concern and that of others that non-citizens who are convicted "of the kind of offences as in this case" should not be permitted to remain in Australia. He said: "The decision made by the AAT was under the "character" provisions of the Migration Act 1958. In line with the Government's commitment during the 1996 Federal election, I am currently pursuing measures which will significantly enhance decision-making to refuse and to cancel visas on character grounds, and to ensure more effective use is made of information provided to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs by law enforcement agencies. I will be reviewing the role of the AAT in this area." The Minister also referred to the fact that he had asked the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to enquire into the effectiveness of the current legislation policy and procedures "to remove these people from Australia", the latter being a reference to non-citizens who during their first ten years of permanent residence in this country are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twelve months or more. On 30 April the Minister had sent to Justice Jane Mathews, President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a letter in which he expressed concern about a number of decisions of the Tribunal on criminal deportation matters. He asserted, inter alia, that while the number of cases overturned by the AAT were not large, they were sensitive and significant in that they: