3. Judge Lowrie fixed what he described as a lower-than-normal non-parole period of six years from the date the Applicant was taken into custody.

SEVERITY APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 1 OCTOBER 2004

1. The evidence indicates that the Applicant lodged a severity appeal with respect to his 2004 District Court sentencing to the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal.
2. On 1 October 2004 the Supreme Court set aside the District Court sentence imposing a sentence of 9 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.
3. The Tribunal has had regard to the severity appeal judgement of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal.
4. Justice Perry noted:

The overall offending was very serious indeed, and represented a persistent course of criminal conduct, extending over a long period of time. > > The appellant has a poor criminal record, and although he is not to be sentenced again for that, this circumstance gives very little buoyancy to his prospects of successful rehabilitation, even if the measures suggested by Dr Balfour were to be put into effect".

The appellant left home and school when age 13 years and lived on the streets. His offending behaviour began at this time. He became a ward of the state and was placed in juvenile residential institutions. He frequently absconded. The appellant has not had any contact with his mother since he was 22 years of age. His father died in 1987. > > The appellant has a long history of dishonesty offending. This has been described as being primarily drug-related. The appellant had spent more than 18 years in custody prior to the present offending. > > By the age of 18 years the appellant had become entrenched in an offending and drug using lifestyle punctuated with frequent periods of incarceration. He told Dr Balfour, a psychologist, that he "always loved using heroin and continues to do so" however, he added that as he has matured, he has realised the negative consequences of drug use and ceases to be free of these consequences. > > At the time of sentencing the appellant had developed a positive relationship with his de-facto partner a relationship which has existed for some seven years. However, he appeared to lack a wider supportive family or social network within the community. > > Following his release from prison in 1997, the appellant maintained a relatively stable lifestyle. However, during 2000, after his de facto partner was diagnosed with cancer, he began using amphetamines. His offending recommenced. > > The appellant has had periods of employment including work as a caterer, scaffolder and forklift driver. Whilst in custody he successfully completed Year 9 level schooling and attained skills as a bricklayer. > > As noted in the psychological report of Dr Balfour, following the present offending the appellant displayed a desire to break the cycle of criminality that has plagued his life. Dr Balfour observed that the appellant had demonstrated a genuine desire to end his drug dependent lifestyle. > > Psychological evidence before the court confirmed the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. However, the likelihood that he will cease to offend is poor without the assistance of appropriate rehabilitation programs. It was considered that further periods of incarceration would make it increasingly difficult for the appellant to successfully re-integrate into society". > > ... Despite a poor criminal record, the appellant presents with prospects for rehabilitation. A number of Dr Balfour's recommendations can be undertaken whilst the appellant is in custody. Other recommendations will have to be deferred until the appellant is released on parole".

6. The Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, found that "having regard to the personal background of the appellant, the history of his offending, the psychological evidence, the lack of violence in the offending, the degree of co-operation with the police and the need for rehabilitation the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive".
7. The evidence indicates that as a result of the Applicant's offending that he was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of his visa on 4 January 2008. A decision was made at that time not to cancel his visa however, the Applicant was issued with a formal written warning with respect to not engaging in future criminal conduct. The warning was issued on 3 April 2008.
8. The warning issued by the Department appears to have had a salient impact on the Applicant as the evidence indicates a period of no offending between 2008 and 2018.
9. The evidence indicates however, that the Applicant engaged in further serious offending in October 2018, whilst on bail. The offending behaviour included a large number of break and enters and two supermarket robberies whilst armed. The evidence indicates that the Applicant entered a supermarket on 20 October 2018 and pushed an employee aside and stole $300 from the cash register. When the Applicant attempted to leave the supermarket, another employee tried to stop him, and the Applicant produced a large chisel and pointed it at the employee before exiting the supermarket. A week later whilst on bail, on 27 October 2018, the Applicant returned to the same supermarket, approached an employee, and forced his way to the cash register stealing $250 in cash. As the Applicant was leaving the supermarket he dropped a chisel and returned to the supermarket to retrieve it before finally exiting.
10. The evidence indicates that on 15 April 2020 the Applicant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne for two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted burglary, five charges of burglary, four charges of theft, one count of criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) and one count of commit indictable offence while on bail. The evidence indicates that the Applicant was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of five years and eight months with respect to this offending.

1. Her Honour Judge Cannon after referring to the Applicant's offending behaviour that occurred over October 2018 noted the following in her sentencing comments:

"Mr S, your offending is most serious and warrants a punishment which is just in all the circumstances and your conduct must be firmly denounced. In relation to the burglaries, you were prepared to violate the sanctity of the homes of a number of people, taking items that were of value, and which have not been recovered. In relation to the armed robberies, you behaved in a most frightening manner on each of the occasions that you offended, committing the offences in broad daylight, and when customers were present. On each of the occasions, the people who you pushed and/or threatened were females who are doing nothing more than trying to earn an honest living. I have little doubt that the victims in respect of each of the offences especially Charges 6, 9, 12 and 13, have been traumatised by your offending. Although no Victim Impact Statements have been provided, it takes little imagination to make this observation about the impact of your offending upon the victims".

2. Judge Cannon makes reference to the Applicant's adult offending which commenced in 1980 with respect to stealing offences.
3. Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant after engaging in offending during the early 1980s 1990's and early 2000's managed to not commit any offending for a number of years.
4. Judge Cannon noted that:

"you managed to behave yourself for a significant number of years, until the offending before me or, more accurately, the offending which saw you plead to a number of dishonesty offences, including burglary and theft, as well as obtain property by deception, in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 1 April this year. > > Although there is a significant gap in your offending, the current spate which sees you come before me, in view of your criminal history, gives me grave cause for concern in terms of your prospects of rehabilitation".

5. In sentencing the Applicant Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant's childhood was difficult, that his biological parents separated when he was young, that the Applicant has had no contact with his mother for an extended period. The Applicant went into state care in 1973 when he was 11 or 12 years old and was then placed into foster care. The Applicant had instructed his representative in the proceedings before Judge Cannon that he had been subjected to sexual abuse whilst in the care of the Social Welfare Department. Judge Cannon noted submissions made by the Applicant's representative that indicated that his criminal offending in the past had been predominantly directed at maintaining his drug addiction.
6. Judge Cannon refers to the Applicant's relationship with D K which commenced in 1997, which had a positive influence on the Applicant. Judge Cannon noted that with the support of Ms K that the Applicant was able to attend a 3-month Technical College course in Whyalla and after that obtain full-time employment in a business in Whyalla called One Steel, where he worked for 10 years progressing to the role of leading hand.
7. Judge Cannon noted that in 2017 Ms K's health deteriorated substantially after she suffered a stroke. The Applicant tried to secure a carers pension but as he had lost his birth certificate and only had an expired South Australian driver's licence to establish identity, he was unable to access a carers pension. As a consequence, the Applicant committed the offending in October 2018 and once again resorted to heroin use.
8. Judge Cannon noted that with respect to the burglary and attempted burglary charges that the Applicant went to lengths to ensure that there was nobody in the homes when he entered or attempted to enter them. Judge Cannon noted however "in relation to the armed robberies, your preparedness to use a degree of physicality in order to access the till and your preparedness to point a weapon to the second victim in relation to Charge 12, make these more serious examples of armed robbery than might otherwise be the case"
9. Judge Cannon noted that she allowed for a significant discount in sentence because of the Applicant's pleas of guilty and at an early stage. She further noted that:

"you made full admissions to police in relation to your offending. Your counsel submitted that you were genuinely remorseful about what you had done. I have struggled with this in view of your criminal history and your repeated offending, albeit that you may well have been affected by drugs when you committed the offences. In the circumstances, I make some allowances for remorse but, in my view, you have a good way to go in order to develop heartfelt remorse for the victims of your offending and also to develop appropriate insight. The difficulty may well be that you lack the skills to truly empathise with your victims, precisely because of your deprived upbringing and the struggles you have had with your well-being".

10. Judge Cannon noted that "in all the circumstances of your case, I consider that you have fairly bleak prospects of rehabilitation, and I must give specific deterrence and protection of the community fairly strong weight".

1. On 16 June 2020 the Applicant's Class BF transitional (permanent) visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The delegate was satisfied that the Applicant did not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record) on the basis of s 501(7)(c) because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
2. On 8 July 2020 the Applicant made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the cancellation decision.
3. Not being satisfied that the Applicant passed the character test the delegate considered whether there was 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
4. The delegate considered the revocation request made by the Applicant on 22 June 2020, a personal particulars form completed by the Applicant dated July 2020, a further response from the Applicant dated 4 June 2021, character references from the Applicant's late partner Ms K dated 21 October 2020, and 7 June 2022 and submissions made by the Applicant on the Applicant's behalf from Ms Shelley Burchfield, Refugee Legal dated 27 January 2025. The delegate also considered a statement provided by the Applicant dated 27 January 2025, along with psychologist's reports from Warren Simmons dated 26 February 2020 and from Gina Cidoni dated 20 December 2024.
5. On 17 April 2025 the delegate notified the Applicant of a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation made on 16 June 2020.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

1. The Tribunal has received a statement of facts issues and contentions from the Applicant's representative, Refugee Legal Victoria, prepared by G.M Hughan, a barrister, dated 10 June 2025.
2. The submission makes reference to the decision under review and noted that the issue before the Tribunal is whether the cancellation decision should be revoked on the basis that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.
3. The submission refers to the Applicant's immigration history noting that he arrived in Australia on 27 December 1963, when he was 20 months old, and that he has not departed Australia since that time.
4. The submission refers to the Applicant's traumatic childhood, his limited education and his placement into state care in 1977, during which time the Applicant was sexually abused by an employee of the facility. The submission notes that the Applicant married as a young adult, however the marriage failed. The Applicant had lived a transient lifestyle and held various labouring jobs.
5. The submission notes that the Applicant met his long-term partner D K in 1997, and that the relationship endured until Ms K's death in April 2024.
6. The submission notes that on 21 July 2023, the Applicant issued civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the State of Victoria seeking compensation for injury, loss and damage that had arisen as a consequence of sexual abuse he experienced whilst in state care. The submission notes that in February 2024 the state of Victoria admitted liability for causing injury to the Applicant for being a victim of sexual abuse whilst in state care and as a consequence he received a financial settlement.
7. The submission makes reference to the Applicant's criminal history based on information contained in the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check Report which is dated 4 December 2020. It notes that the Applicant's earliest court appearances were in children's and juvenile courts in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and commenced in 1977, when the Applicant was 15 years old, and was transient and homeless. The submission notes that the offences at this time were predominantly burglary and theft linked to the Applicant's alcohol and illicit drug use. As a consequence, the Applicant spent various periods of time in youth detention.
8. The submission notes that in 1980 when the Applicant turned 18, that he appeared before adult courts with respect to offences that included stealing, theft, robbery, aid and abet robbery whilst armed, break enter and steal, drug possession and fraud. The evidence was that between 1981 and 2004 the Applicant was sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for these offences which were all related to his ongoing heroin dependency.
9. The submission goes on to focus on the Applicant's convictions and sentences of imprisonment in South Australia in 2004 and 2005 and in Victoria in 2020 which have been extensively referred to by the Tribunal.
10. The submission notes that with respect to Direction 110, that the following should be considered, namely those factors in Section 8 of the Direction containing the 'primary' considerations and those in section 9 of the Direction containing 'other' considerations.
11. The submission argues that the Applicant, now aged 63, does not present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that his criminal history has been largely confined to drug-related property offending with limited personal violence.
12. The submission notes that the Applicant has finally confronted his childhood sexual abuse which has been identified as the predominant underlying cause of his long-term heroin addiction and resultant offending. The submission notes the Applicant had never been treated for this underlying trauma. Further the Applicant has been engaging "in therapeutic drug and alcohol counselling for a period of 12 months in immigration detention and is committed to ongoing treatment in the community to address his trauma and to prevent relapse".
13. In terms of the Applicant's post release plans the Applicant intended to return to Whyalla in South Australia where he had worked between 2008 and 2018. The Applicant has maintained ongoing connections with former work colleagues and friends in Whyalla who were willing to support him reintegrate into the community.
14. The Applicant was reliant on expert psychiatric evidence provided by Dr Siva Bala on his behalf with respect to his child abuse case against the state of Victoria. Also, the report of Dr Gregor Schutz who prepared an assessment of the Applicant on behalf of the state of Victoria contained in the Applicant's tender bundle at pages 52-97. This evidence indicates that the Applicant's drug addiction and mental health problems have been caused by the trauma inflicted by childhood sexual abuse that he suffered in the 1970s whilst in state care.
15. The submission concedes that the two offences of armed robbery for which the Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the County Court in Victoria in 2020 were offences that should be viewed "very seriously". The submission notes however, that in either case no physical harm was caused to the victims. Reference is made to the sentencing comments of Judge Cannon noting that the Applicant had shoved a female shop attendant whilst trying to access the till and that he waved a chisel at another female shop attendant who tried to stop him exiting the store. Judge Cannon noted that these events would have traumatised victims and further noted that the Applicant did not cause physical harm to any person.
16. The submission documents the Applicant's criminal history, and the respective sentences imposed by the courts for his crimes.
17. The submission notes the Applicant's offending history from the age of 15 was linked to his long-term heroin addiction and that there was no evidence of a trend of increasing seriousness. The submission notes that when the Applicant was gainfully employed in Whyalla between 2008 and 2018, that he did not offend during that period, and only relapsed into offending after his partner became seriously ill which saw the resumption of his addiction exacerbated by financial difficulty.
18. The submission states that the Applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The Applicant had now obtained insight into the impact of childhood sexual abuse upon his life for which he had successfully litigated and received financial compensation.
19. The submission notes that the Applicant was reliant on the December 2024 report by psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni. The Tribunal notes that a supplementary report from Ms Cidoni dated 26 June 2025 has also been provided and duly considered.
20. The submission notes that the Applicant used funds from his child abuse financial settlement to pay victims compensation that had been ordered by the Magistrates Court in Melbourne with respect to his sentencing in July 2020.
21. The submission notes that the Applicant's Victorian prison records were positive indicators of him being of good behaviour and having a strong work ethic whilst in prison. The submission notes that the Applicant completed a number of rehabilitation programs whilst in prison, and that his parole from prison was supported by a case management review committee on 4 March 2021, however the Applicant's visa cancellation resulted in parole being denied.
22. The submission notes that whilst in prison the Applicant commenced opioid substitution treatment which he had continued. Further, if he was released into the community the Applicant wants to continue with methadone treatment which would be overseen by his former general practitioner in Whyalla, Dr Francis.
23. The submission notes that the Applicant had engaged with individual drug and alcohol counselling in immigration detention since May 2024. The submission notes that the Applicant "has admitted that he used methylamphetamine on one occasion whilst in detention but has used this failing to re-affirm his commitment to remain abstinent of illicit drugs".[1]
24. The submission notes that the Applicant had a sound plan to return to Whyalla if he is released into the community and that he has former work colleagues in the Whyalla district willing to offer him accommodation and social support. Further, that the Applicant's employment prospects in Whyalla Steelworks were good because of his excellent past employment record.
25. The submission notes that Ms Cidoni had assessed the Applicant's prospects for rehabilitation as being "moderate to good". However, Ms Cidoni noted that this was contingent upon the Applicant "receiving a comprehensive and tailored support plan which includes integrated mental health treatment incorporating trauma therapy, substance use treatment, and grief counselling".
26. The submission posits that the Tribunal should find that the risk of the Applicant re-offending is low and that there is a negligible risk of any serious re-offending.
27. The submission notes that the Applicant has never engaged in family violence.
28. The submission notes that in regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia that the Applicant had lived in Australia for 62 years and had never departed. He had been in a long-term relationship with an Australian citizen, the late D K, from 1997 up until the time of her death, in April 2024. The Applicant had been Ms K's long-term carer which constituted a significant contribution to the Australian community.
29. The Applicant had also contributed to the Australian community through his employment at Whyalla Steelworks from 2008 until 2018 at which time he worked as an operator and leading hand.
30. The Applicant conceded that his family connections were limited, however, the Applicant has some contact with his half-brother J, who resided in Western Australia and with Ms K's brother M, who resides in Whyalla and with whom he hoped to reconnect.
31. Having regard to the expectations of the Australian community it was submitted that even if the Tribunal, having regard to the Applicant's offending finds that he should not hold a visa that this consideration is capable of being outweighed by countervailing considerations. Reference was made to the case of FBYR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454. This case reflects the fact that the Tribunal retains a broad discretion in determining whether there is another reason why a cancellation decision should be revoked. Further that the Tribunal's statutory task "is synthesising multiple interrelated considerations that are relevant to the determination and that "the Direction does not identify any consideration weighing in favour of non-revocation that is not capable of being outweighed by a sufficiently weighty countervailing consideration or considerations".
32. In conclusion it was submitted that this consideration should be given little or no weight as there were countervailing considerations that outweighed those considerations in favour of non-revocation.
33. Having regard to 'other considerations" it was noted that the Applicant faces multiple impediments if he was removed to the United Kingdom. He has never resided in the United Kingdom he has chronic and complex trauma symptoms associated with his drug abuse history and child abuse history. The Applicant is on an opioid addiction regime of 100mg of methadone daily. The Applicant suffers with complex mental health issues. The Applicant has a history of hepatitis B and C. The Applicant has no family or other support network in the United Kingdom. There will be significant barriers to successful integration in the United Kingdom based on age, skills and any meaningful connection to the United Kingdom.
34. In conclusion the Applicant's representative submits that the Tribunal should find that balancing all other considerations it should be satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

1. The Respondent's representative provided a submission to the Tribunal dated 23 June 2025 which has been duly considered.
2. The submission notes that a preliminary issue for the Tribunal's determination is to identify the non-convictions precluded from consideration. The submission notes that the Applicant's representative in their SFIC dated 23 June 2025 at paragraph 60 stated that having regard to the National Criminal History Check "that appearances for which a conviction was not recorded as shown on the NCHC (and there are several) cannot be considered".
3. The Respondent noted that the substantive issue for the Tribunal's determination in the application for review was "whether the cancellation decision should be revoked pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act either because the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 5 are one of the Migration Act), or because there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked".
4. At paragraph 14 the Respondent provides a summary of contentions on behalf of the Minister. Those contentions are that the Applicant does not pass the character test pursuant to paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act because he has 'a substantial criminal record' as defined in subsection 501(7) of the Migration Act. The submission notes that "the only basis on which the Minister (and the Tribunal, standing in the Minister's shoes) may decide to revoke the Cancellation Decision is where the decision maker is satisfied that there exists another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked".
5. The Respondent noted that in considering whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, that the Tribunal must apply Ministerial Direction 110.
6. The Respondent contended that primary considerations 1 and 5 weigh strongly against the Tribunal being satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, due to the very serious nature of the Applicants repeat offending. The Applicant's property offending involved the use or threats of violence; the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeat offending; the unacceptable risk that the Applicant would reoffend; the expectations of the Australian community that the Australian government should cancel a non-citizens visa, if they have engaged in serious crimes against women.
7. The Minister accepts that primary consideration 3 weighs in the Applicant's favour, however any weight attributed to this consideration is moderated by the fact that due to the Applicant's significant criminal history that he has spent a lot of time in custody which has limited his ability to establish ties with Australian citizens and permanent residents, or people with an indefinite right to remain in Australia. Further that the Applicant is largely estranged from his close family members in Australia due to his drug use and criminal and prison history.
8. The Minister accepted that 'Other Consideration' 2, namely the extent of impediments if removed from Australia weighed in the Applicant's favour. Overall, the Minister contended that the considerations weighing in the Applicant's favour were outweighed by primary considerations 1 and 5 noting that the protection of the Australian community was to be given greater weight.
9. The Respondent's submission noted that it was not in contention that the Applicant did not pass the character test and refers to the fact that the Applicant was sentenced on 15 April 2020 to a term of three years imprisonment, and as such was taken to have "a substantial criminal record" under paragraph 501(7)(c) of the Act. That it followed that pursuant to paragraph 501(6)(a) the Applicant did not pass the character test.
10. Hence, the Tribunal must determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. The Respondent's submission makes reference to the preliminary matters for consideration set out in Direction 110 and it also makes reference to the five Primary Considerations and to the Other Considerations.
11. With respect to these considerations the submission notes the following.
12. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, that violent crimes were viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community, that regard should be had to the sentence imposed by the courts with respect to a person's criminal offending history. That consideration should be had to the impact of offending on any victims, the frequency of a non-citizens offending**,** whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeat offending and whether a non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned.
13. The submission makes extensive reference to the Applicant's criminal history and violent crimes in play from 1980 through to 2018 which led to the Applicant's most recent convictions in the County Court of Victoria in April 2020.
14. The submission also refers to the sentencing remarks of Judge Cannon in the County Court of Victoria on 15 April 2020, noting that the Applicants offending behaviour whilst robbing a supermarket was frightening, threatening, and directed at females who were engaged in nothing more than their employment. The submission notes the Judge Cannon described the Applicants offending as in the category of "most serious". Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant was prepared to violate the sanctity of people's homes and to rob them of items which were a value to them and that the Applicant's supermarket offending was aggravated by the fact of his preparedness to use physicality in order to access the cash register.
15. The submission notes that sentencing remarks made in March 2003 by the Court of Appeal indicating that the trial judge had considered the Applicants offending to be "quite horrific in nature". Further that Judge Perry in the Court of Appeal considered the Applicants offending to be very serious and offending that extended over a long period of time.
16. The Respondent's position is that the Applicants offending should be viewed very seriously having regard to Direction 110. Further that the Applicant had been sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment including in 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2020. Consideration should be had to the impact of the Applicants offending on victims and to the cumulative effect of the Applicants offending over multiple decades. Further the Respondent refers to the magnitude of offences recorded on the Applicant's offending history, including offences that were committed whilst the Applicant was on conditional liberty and unlawful custody. The Respondent also refers to the trend of increasing seriousness in the offending with the Applicants later offending involving physicality and weapons. The Respondent contends that these matters weigh heavily against revocation.
17. The Respondent contends that having regard to risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, that having regard to the Applicants offending history to date that if the Applicant was to continue to offend that his offending may include physical and psychological harm; financial harm; a burden on public health and law enforcement; and harm to road users. The Respondent submits that the nature of harm occasioned by any further offending would be unacceptable to the Australian community.
18. The Respondent "contends that the Applicants offending (which includes violence and property offending that sentencing courts accepted to have had a '_traumatisin_g' and 'devastating' effect on its victims) is so serious that any material risk of reoffending ought to be considered to be unacceptable".
19. The Respondent submits that the Applicant commenced using drugs in his adolescence and suffers with significant mental health issues. The Applicant has referred to underlying trauma along with the impact of his late partners medical issues as being attributable for this.
20. The Respondent refers to the report by Dr Siva Bala, psychiatrist, dated 11 March 2023 which notes that the Applicant had "complex post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a history of substance use disorder in remission within a controlled environment".
21. The Respondent noted that Dr Bala indicated in the report that the Applicant had not sought help for treatment for his addictions in the past and had never engaged in any psychological or psychiatric treatment in the past, and that his abuse included alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, opiates and psychotropic medications. The Respondent noted that Dr Bala concluded that the Applicant needed strong psychological and psychiatric treatment over an extended period to address these issues, suggesting 2 to 5 years. Dr Bala also opined that the Applicant is at "high risk of relapsing into substance use due to untreated, active post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that predispose him to dysfunctional coping mechanisms by substance use".
22. The Respondent referred to the report of Dr Gregor Schultz, a psychiatrist, who prepared the report dated 6 June 2024, in relation to the Applicant's claims against the State of Victoria for child abuse experienced in state care. Dr Shultz diagnosed the Applicant with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and unspecified depressive disorder and a significant opioid use disorder. The Respondent noted that Dr Shultz indicated that the Applicant had received no therapy whilst in gaol or immigration detention and had only recently engaged with a psychologist every 2 to 3 weeks whilst in immigration detention and that the Applicant's conditions "have likely stabilised with the caveat that he clearly is in a precarious position, facing deportation".
23. Dr Shultz recommended the Applicant needed to engage in psychological treatment each fortnight for at least 12 to 18 months that included a trauma component to treat the Applicant's underlying conditions. Dr Shultz opined that the Applicant's prognosis was mixed and was compromised by the fact that the Applicant had limited support in the community, he was estranged from his family, and he had a long history of significant substance use.
24. The Respondent referred to the report by Ms Gina Cidoni, a psychologist, which had been prepared for the purpose of the Applicants immigration matters. Ms Cidoni indicated that the period of stable employment from 2008 provided the Applicant with some stability. Ms Cidoni in applying Violence Risk Appraisal Guides (VRAG) as an actuarial tool assessed the Applicant's risk of further violence to be within the range of risk category 6.
25. Ms Cidoni also identified the Applicants risk factors included "a long history of violent offences and persistent antisocial behaviour, significant childhood trauma, chronic substance abuse, current mental health issues like depression, and unstable emotional state, and challenging future circumstances due to potential visa cancellation, loss of support networks, and health complications" which Ms Cidoni opined complicated "risk management and treatment adherence".
26. Applying the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management Violence Assessment Scheme Version 3 (HCR-20-V3), it was noted that Ms Cidoni assessed the Applicant's risk of violent offending to be moderate. The risk factors that were identified were childhood instability, abuse, early exposure to violence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, along with the fact that the Applicant displayed a poor understanding of the factors that influenced his behaviour and exhibited what she described as poor emotional regulation, unresolved trauma factors that contributed to a vulnerability to stress and substance relapse.
27. The Respondent's submission notes that Ms Cidoni considered that the Applicant had the potential to reintegrate successfully into the community, however this was contingent on him having access to consistent mental health services, trauma-focused counselling and substance abuse treatment to mitigate risk. The Respondent highlights that Ms Cidoni found that the Applicant struggled with grief, loss, unresolved trauma and that these factors increased the Applicant's vulnerability to engage in maladaptive behaviours including substance abuse. She opined that the Applicants offending could be understood within the context of early adversity experienced by the Applicant, however, they had been exacerbated by his ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental health conditions, periods of homelessness, financial strain and the emotional stress of dealing with his late partners declining health. Ms Cidoni concluded that these factors had eroded the Applicant's ability to 'navigate challenges in a constructive manner'.
28. The Respondent submitted that prior to being in immigration detention that the Applicant had not engaged in any help or treatment for his psychological and psychiatric impairments. Further that the Applicant has not yet completed the treatment that experts believed he will need to engage in going forward.
29. Overall, the Respondent submits that with respect to primary consideration 1 that the Applicant represented an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. To support this assertion the Respondent relied on the findings of Dr Bala that the Applicant had poor capacity and prospects for employment going forward. The Applicant has not completed the treatment that experts have identified for him, that there is no definitive offer of employment that has been made to the Applicant. The Respondent noted that the Applicant has contended that he led a pro-social life between 2000 and 2018 and suggested that regard to this needed to "be limited in circumstances where the available information suggests that the Applicant has left the jurisdiction of the Receiving Charges and has failed since 8 May 2001 to sufficiently cooperate with investigating authorities to facilitate the bench warrant against him being revoked or the Receiving Charges being finalised".
30. The Respondent also notes that the Applicant in the past has claimed to be disillusioned with his lifestyle of drug addiction, offending, and incarceration, and had been motivated to break out of that cycle but nonetheless, the pattern of the Applicant's behaviour, showed regular relapse and the commission of further serious offending. The Respondent noted that the Applicant had committed further offending when confronted with life's stressors such as the deteriorating health of his partner, and his inability to obtain carer benefits.
31. The Respondent submits that the Applicants offending weighed very heavily against him within the context of Primary Consideration 1. To buttress their submission the Respondent relied on the fact that the Applicant had a significant criminal history and a significant history of reoffending, despite being given countless opportunities from the Australian courts to cease engagement in criminal conduct and also being formally warned with respect to the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status in 2008.
32. The Respondent relied on the fact that the Applicant's risk of violent reoffending had been assessed by professionals to be moderate. The Applicant had an extensive history of drug misuse. The Applicant had demonstrated limited insight and understanding of the factors that influenced his behaviour in the past. The Applicant has previously reoffended despite protective factors that he claimed to be in place to prevent that offending. The Applicant had a propensity to decompensate by using drugs and committing further offences following periods of stability and abstinence. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's rehabilitation from drug abuse has not been properly tested in the community. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's payment to a victim of $14,300 in satisfaction of compensation orders made by the Melbourne's Magistrate Court was more motivated by his desire to improve his prospects with respect to the cancellation review that was before the Tribunal. Reference was again made to the Applicant leaving the jurisdiction of the Receiving Charges from 2001 and that he had failed since 8 May 2001 to cooperate with investigating authorities to facilitate a bench warrant against him being revoked or for these charges to be finalised.
33. Overall, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant has sufficiently addressed the factors that have contributed to his offending and that the Applicant has not sustained in any significant rehabilitation efforts. The Respondent submits that the Applicants continued presence in Australia poses an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Collectively for these reasons the Respondent contends that Primary Consideration 1 weighs very strongly in favour of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
34. With regard to Primary Consideration 2 dealing with family violence committed by the Applicant the Respondent submitted that there was no evidence which indicated that this consideration applied, and the Respondent accordingly considered it should be afforded neutral weight.
35. In regard to Primary Consideration 3 strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia the Respondent noted that the evidence indicated the Applicant had a number of family members in Australia. These included his biological mother, his step-mother, two biological brothers, three-step-brothers, two uncles, an aunt, a nephew and three cousins. It was submitted that the evidence indicated that the Applicants ties with his family members were fractious and complex due to his long drug and offending history and significant periods of imprisonment. These factors limited the strength duration and nature of ties that the Applicant had to these family members. The Respondent submitted that having regard to the length of time that the Applicant had resided in Australia, accepted that the Applicant was likely to have established some social connections during his period of residence with other members of the Australian community, and that the interests of these persons should be taken into account. The Respondent also accepted that there was evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant had made a positive contribution to the Australian community through his employment in Whyalla and the care that he provided to his late partner.
36. The Respondent submitted that primary consideration 3 should weigh in the Applicant's favour, however, the Respondent submitted that this should be tempered by the following factors. Firstly, the significant periods of time that the Applicant had been incarcerated and thus removed from the Australian community. The Applicant's scattered and indeed limited work history. The Respondent submitted that "to the extent that the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of setting aside the reviewable decision, the Respondent contends that it is outweighed by Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
37. Having regard to Primary Consideration 4 the best interests of minor children, the Respondent noted that there was no information which indicated that any child in Australia would be affected by the Tribunal's decision and there was no evidence to indicate that this consideration applied.
38. Having regard to Primary Consideration 5 the expectations of the Australian community the Respondent made the following contentions. Firstly, that the nature of the offences that have been committed over time by the Applicant are such, that the Australian community would expect his visa to remain cancelled. In particular, the fact that the Applicants offending at times included the perpetration of violence, including violence against women, and the use of weapons.
39. The Respondent noted that in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending which had been discussed in detail with respect to Primary Consideration 1, the Respondent contended that the Applicant did not meet Australian community expectations that he would obey the laws of Australia, and once again the Australian community's expectation would be that the Applicant's visa should remain cancelled.
40. Overall, the Respondent contended that Primary Consideration 5 favoured a decision not to revoke the cancellation decision under review.
41. The Respondent submitted that with respect to 'other considerations' that having regard to the legal consequences of the decision, conceded that if the Applicant's visa remained cancelled that he would be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable pursuant to section 198 of the Act and that he would be subject to ongoing immigration detention under section 189 of the Act.
42. The Respondent conceded that there were no non-refoulement obligations that arose in this case and contended that overall, this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
43. Having regard to the extent of impediments if removed, the Respondent conceded that the Applicant, who is now 63 years of age, has a number of complex medical conditions, such as complex post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a significant opioid disorder in remission. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was treated with methadone on a daily basis for his heroin dependence. The Respondent noted that the Applicant would face emotional hardship if removed to the United Kingdom. The Respondent contended that the Applicant would struggle with a lack of connection and a support network or indeed familiarity with the United Kingdom and would find it challenging to establish himself because of those factors along with his age.
44. The Respondent contended that the United Kingdom offered a comparable health and welfare system to Australia and indicated that the Applicant would be able to access social, medical and/or economic support in the United Kingdom.
45. The Respondent addressed the Applicant's concerns that his lack of ready documentation upon being removed to the United Kingdom may result in him not being able to access his methadone maintenance program which could have adverse consequences on his health. The Respondent noted that the Applicant had not provided evidence to demonstrate that he would not be able to access appropriate treatment to address him accessing drug rehabilitation treatments upon arriving in the United Kingdom.
46. The Respondent acknowledged that the extent of impediments if removed weighed in favour of the Applicant, however contended that this was outweighed by Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
47. The Respondent noted that there was no evidence that the Applicant's removal from Australia would have any impact on Australian business interests.
48. In conclusion the Respondent noted that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was seeking the Tribunal make an order that his name not be published because it would lead to his identification as a victim of sexual assault. The Respondent noted that proceedings brought by the Applicant against the State of Victoria were initiated in his own name. The Respondent noted that there was already publicly accessible material in which the Applicant had been identified as a victim of sexual assault. In the circumstances the Respondent contended that the order with respect to him being identified in the decision record would not achieve the purpose for which it was sought and that the appropriate time for the parties to make a submission about any order regarding publication of the Applicant's name would be after the Tribunal had given its reasons to the public.

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS DATED 26 JUNE 2025

1. The Applicant agreed with the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's charges dealt with before 6 April 1980 by courts in Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia should be given no weight, as this offending occurred when the Applicant was a minor. Further to this that the Tribunal should place no weight on matters listed in the Applicant's National Criminal History Certificate dealt with by the Central Local Court of New South Wales on 10 March 1987, on the basis that the Applicant was released on a reconnaissance to be of good behaviour, with the effect that he was not convicted of those offences, and hence no regard should be had to them.
2. Further to this the Applicant agrees with the Respondent's submission that pending charges listed on the Applicant's National Criminal History Check should not be taken into account as findings of guilt.
3. The Applicant rejects the contention that primary consideration 1, namely protection of the Australian community, and primary consideration 5 expectations of the Australian community weigh strongly against the Applicant and outweigh other considerations. The Applicant submits that weight to be given to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community are substantially outweighed by other considerations, including the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia and the extent of impediments of his return to the United Kingdom. The submission also notes that a further relevant consideration "is the responsibility which Australia has to ensure the harm suffered by the Applicant as a victim of childhood sexual abuse in an Australian institution is not exacerbated by removing him to a country to which (sic) is not connected other than by reason of his birth".
4. The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to adequately address the psychological damage caused by the sexual abuse suffered by the Applicant as a child which operates as an impediment to his removal to the United Kingdom. The submission also posits that genuine consideration of the human consequences of what has been done to somebody needs to be considered in the exercise of administrative discretion.
5. The submission takes issue with the characterisation of the Applicant's offending that occurred in a supermarket in Victoria in 2018. The submission acknowledges that the Applicant's offending history includes some crimes which are viewed "very seriously". The submission notes however that the Applicant has limited convictions for offences of personal violence and has only two convictions of offences for personal violence in the last two decades.
6. The submission states that the Applicant's offending has predominantly resulted from the impact of his untreated childhood trauma and related drug addiction. The submission notes that the 10-year period of no offending between 2008 and 2018 was not addressed by the Respondent. The submission rejects the notion that the Applicants offending over time was indicative of a trend of increasing seriousness noting that prior to the October 2018 offending the Applicant had not offended for some 15 years.
7. With respect to risk, the submission notes that the Applicant was assessed by Corrections Victoria Forensic Intervention Services on 30 March 2021, by a Senior Psychologist, Dr Kerri Kershaw, who applying a number of tests determined that the Applicant should be placed in the low-risk category of risk of violence relative to other offenders.
8. Reference was made to the report of the psychiatrist Dr Bala, who assessed the Applicant for the purpose of his claim against the State of Victoria for child abuse compensation. It was noted in his report of 11 March 2024, that the Applicant's prognosis with regard to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder was positive with gradual improvement expected over time. Further that the main causal factor of the Applicant's condition is the sexual abuse that he experienced whilst in the protection of the state.
9. The submission notes that the Respondent did not acknowledge the findings of the psychiatrist Dr Schutz in his report of 6 June 2024, who opined that the Applicant's prognosis was mixed but noted that he had been able to maintain stable employment for a lengthy period of time and appeared to be motivated to remain abstinent from drugs.
10. The submission noted that the Applicant had engaged in drug and alcohol counselling whilst in immigration detention in Victoria over the past 12 months.
11. The submission notes that the Applicant had friends and professional supports in place in Whyalla and has funds to purchase a home and noted that the Applicant had done well in Whyalla in the past. The submission notes that the Applicant had been assessed in prison as having a low risk of future violent offending.
12. The submission acknowledged that the Applicant was estranged from immediate family members in Australia but had recently located and connected with the brother of his late partner, Mr M K.
13. The submission notes that the Applicant had provided a significant contribution to Ms K before he was incarcerated. Reference was made to the Applicant's work history and to the fact that the Applicant had worked consistently whilst in prison during his recent prison sentence. The submission notes despite the fact that the Applicant had been subjected to institutional sexual abuse he had nevertheless made a substantial contribution to the Australian community through his work and caregiving.
14. The submission contends that having regard to expectations of the Australian community that the Tribunal could reduce the relative weight attributed to this consideration having regard to the evidence before it.
15. The submission noted the impact that will be caused to the Applicant in terms of impediments if he is removed to the United Kingdom.
16. The submission notes that the Respondent has not addressed "at all the 'other' consideration raised by the Applicant being the incongruity of Australia accepting liability for the damage done to him as a young person in state care, then punishing him by removing him at age 63 to a country where he has no connection and where the psychological damage to him will be compounded. It is the Applicant's contention that this consideration weighs heavily, in favour of revocation."

1. The Tribunal noted that the evidence filed and marked before it included the joint hearing book filed on 27 June 2025. The G documents filed on 19 May 2025. The evidence also included four documents filed by the Applicant on 27 June 2025 including the Parliament of Victoria's Parliamentary Apology to Care Leavers dated 8 February 2024. The National Apology from the National Office of Child Safety delivered by the Australian Government on the 22 October 2018. A copy of the final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse published in December 2017. A copy of the decision in Byers v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 183, 5 November 2024.
2. At the hearing the Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant also called the following witnesses who gave evidence and were cross-examined.

(a) Ms Gina Cidoni, Registered Psychologist; > > (b) Mr Aaron S, a friend of the Applicant.

3. In opening Mr Hughan noted that this was an exceptional case. Mr Hughan stated that the Applicant's problems as an adult with his drug addiction and criminal offending was a direct consequence of abuse that he experienced as a child whilst in care of the State in Victoria. Mr Hughan noted that the Applicant falls within the class of persons whom the Australian Federal Government and the Victorian State Government have apologised to for their failure and the adverse impact that it had on victims. It was conceded that the Applicant had a long history of offending some of which was serious. Mr Hughan stated that none of the Applicant's offending rose to the level at which the Tribunal would say any risk of reoffending was unacceptable. Mr Hughan stated that with respect to risk there were a number of support mechanisms in place. The Applicant will return to Whyalla where he had a crime free and drug-free life for 10 years during which time he worked in the steel industry. The Applicant had contributed to the care of his late partner D K. The Applicant had the support from friends in Whyalla and he has set up medical and psychological support to be in place and ready to go if he is released into the community and returns to Whyalla.
4. It was noted that if the Applicant is removed to the United Kingdom, he has no family, no friends, no prospects of employment and would experience difficulty in accessing social services. Mr Hughan noted that the Australian Government had accepted responsibility for the harm caused to the Applicant by accepting his compensation claim. Mr Hughan argued that it would be repugnant for the Australian community to turn its back on the Applicant.
5. The Applicant confirmed that his statements provided to the Tribunal in support of his review application dated 27 January 2025, 10 June 2025, and 26 June 2025, were all true and correct.
6. The Applicant gave evidence about how the child abuse that he had experienced in state care in Victoria made him feel. The Applicant described it is causing him to "go off the rails". The Applicant stated that he suffered nightmares, he started taking drugs to dull the pain. The Applicant stated that he stole to pay for drugs, which led to periods of imprisonment. The Applicant conceded that he had used drugs for most of his life.
7. The Applicant expressed that if he is released back into the community that he does not want to return to a life of drug abuse and crime. The Applicant stated that with a structured plan including drug and alcohol counselling, trauma counselling and a willingness to engage in work in the steel industry in Whyalla would assist in this respect. The Applicant stated that he saw this is his last chance, and that with his compensation money he could purchase a property in Whyalla.
8. When asked whether he had previously addressed the trauma as a result of child abuse the Applicant stated he took drugs and consumed alcohol. The Applicant stated that he would address his addictions by the support of friends, he noted he had an offer of a place to stay in Whyalla with a previous work colleague and friend Mr Aaron S. The Applicant stated that he had explored drug and alcohol counselling options available to him in Whyalla. He had also conducted Internet searches looking for a psychologist in Adelaide or Whyalla that could assist him with trauma counselling with respect to child abuse trauma and had found Mr Luke Williams who had agreed to take the Applicant on as a client going forward. He believes that Mr Williams would be a good fit because he had worked in the corrective services system and dealt with people like the Applicant with a long drug, criminal and prison history. The Applicant advised that since he had been in immigration detention he had seen a psychologist by the name of John every 2 to 3 weeks for around 50 minutes. The Applicant stated that he had also engaged with drug and alcohol counselling whilst he was in prison. The Applicant advised that he had never attended Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous.
9. The Tribunal, noting the Applicant's extensive criminal and drug history asked the Applicant whether a magistrate or judge had ever suggested as part of his bail conditions or with respect to sentencing that he engage in a full-time drug rehabilitation program or drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The Applicant stated that this had not occurred in the various criminal justice systems throughout Australia in which he had appeared.
10. The Applicant stated that he has a number of plans if he is released from detention. He advised he is currently on methadone treatment and will organise to have this treatment transferred from Victoria to South Australia. The Applicant had been in touch with his previous general practitioner in South Australia, Dr Francis, who had agreed to take the Applicant on again as a patient. The Applicant stated that he would derive support from his current representative. The Applicant stated that he had looked into hotels and motels to stay in initially when he is released. The Applicant stated that he will have to buy clothes and get himself sorted. The Applicant stated that he could not leave Victoria until such time as his methadone treatment had been sorted out. The Applicant stated that he would then organise a flight to South Australia. The Applicant stated because of his compensation payout he had the financial circumstances to pay for his flight and hotel.
11. The Applicant gave evidence with respect to his previous employment history at One Steel in Whyalla. The Applicant stated that it was hot and challenging work involving 12 hour rotating shifts, but he believed that he had the stamina and experience to undertake this work again.
12. The Applicant gave evidence about his late partner D K's poor health and how he had provided substantial care to her after she suffered a stroke followed by a heart attack and later cancer.
13. The Applicant advised that he had previously had a drug slipup when he was on parole and was issued a warning by his parole officer. The Applicant confirmed that he started using heroin again when he relocated from South Australia to Victoria.
14. The Applicant stated that when his partner D was diagnosed with cancer that she wanted to relocate from South Australia to Victoria. They initially stayed two weeks with a friend in Bendigo at which time Ms K was able to organise a place for herself that did not include the Applicant as it could only accommodate one person. The Applicant stated that whilst in Bendigo he fell back into criminal offending and heroin use. The Applicant conceded that in October 2018, he committed armed robbery and also a number of break and enters. With respect to the armed robbery offences the Applicant stated that he was in an IGA supermarket and that he noticed that the draw of the till was open and in the moment, he shoved the lady that was working at the till out of the way, took cash from the till, and ran away from the supermarket. The Applicant conceded that he had a chisel in his possession at the time and it was on his person as he used it to break into houses.
15. The Applicant gave evidence that after 10 years of sobriety and being drug-free that the wheels fell off the cart quickly in Bendigo for a number of reasons. The Applicant stated that he was depressed about D's illness, he was depressed about accommodation issues, it was difficult to source accommodation. The Applicant stated that he had problems with identification in Victoria which meant that he could not access a carers pension. The Applicant stated that within days he slipped back into drug use and associated criminality.
16. The Applicant discussed a second armed robbery at the same IGA supermarket one week after the first. The Applicant stated that he walked into the supermarket and waited for the draw of the till to open before grabbing cash. The Applicant stated that as he was exiting the store, a lady stood in front of him, and he pulled the chisel out and ran past her. The Applicant stated that he was not clear about the order of things. The Applicant confirmed that he was arrested in November 2018, for this spate of offending and sentenced by Judge Cannon on 15 April 2020 in the County Court of Victoria at which time he was sentenced to a period of eight years with a non-parole period of five years. The Applicant stated that he applied for parole but was denied it, as his visa had been cancelled and he was the subject of deportation. As a consequence, the Applicant served his full term of imprisonment.
17. The Applicant gave evidence about a verbal altercation that occurred in prison during Covid lockdowns during which time prisoners were locked in the cell for 24 hours a day. The Applicant stated that food was passed through the trapdoor into his cell and the Applicant made a derogatory comment to a prison guard. The Applicant stated that this was the only infraction of this kind during this period of imprisonment. The Applicant also advised that he refused a urine test on one occasion because he was not able to urinate. The Applicant stated that he had been able to provide urine samples during his time in prison and had never failed drug testing.
18. The Applicant advised during his term of imprisonment he worked in the prison kitchen and was considered to be in a trusted role because of access to knives. The Applicant stated that he got on reasonably well in prison because of his commitment to work and limited engagement with other prisoners.
19. The Applicant confirmed that his partner Ms K passed away in April 2024 and he was able to attend a funeral for her in August 2024, escorted by immigration officers. The Applicant confirmed that he had been with Ms K from 1997.
20. The Applicant described that he had also taken a caring role for a prisoner with cancer during his last term of imprisonment and that he helped the prisoner with breakfast, assisting him with walking, and assisting with his general care needs and this continued for six months.
21. The Applicant advised that not long after Ms K's funeral in August 2024 that he was feeling down and that he used methamphetamines on one occasion in immigration detention. The Applicant stated that since that incident he had been transferred to a less secure wing in immigration detention which was more relaxed and more open. The Applicant stated that he was not happy with his slipup, and he had not engaged in drug use in detention again.
22. The Applicant advised the Tribunal that he received compensation from the Victorian Government for being a victim of child abuse in either January or February 2025. The Applicant stated that he had used part of his compensation monies to comply with a victim compensation order issued by the courts in Victoria.
23. With respect to being returned to the United Kingdom the Applicant stated that he did not know anybody in that country, he would be unsure about where he would live. In order to link in with medical and counselling services he would have to do look around to determine how to access these services. The Applicant stated that he believed being returned to the United Kingdom would be disastrous for him. The Applicant conceded that he may be able to get work in a steel mill in England because of his work experience.
24. In terms of future risk of reoffending and drug use the Applicant stated that if he was released, he had a plan to link in with counselling and support services. The Applicant stated that being a carer for his late partner had at times been challenging but since her passing he would be able to focus on his own health needs going forward.
25. The Applicant was cross-examined by the Respondent's representative. The Applicant gave evidence with respect to the armed robberies at the IGA supermarket. The Applicant confirmed that he was carrying a chisel at the time of this offending because he used it to do burglaries. The Applicant conceded that on both occasions that he attended the IGA supermarket that the chisel was in his possession. The Applicant conceded that he waived the chisel at the employee that tried to stop him from exiting the store in order to create fear. The Applicant conceded that there were outstanding matters in the Bunbury Court of Petty Sessions dating back to May 2001, described in his national criminal history check as pending charges, no appearance. The Applicant stated that he failed to appear in Bunbury because of the fact that he was using drugs at the time and described them as ruling his life. The Applicant stated that he had not taken any steps to resolve the outstanding charges in Western Australia from 8 May 2001. The Applicant advised that he moved from Western Australia because he was heavily involved in the drug scene, was making poor decisions, and decided to move away. The Applicant believed that he moved to South Australia in 2001.
26. The Applicant conceded that he had breached bail on a number of occasions.
27. The Applicant stated that he first used drugs in his early teens experimenting with marijuana and Avil car sickness tablets on one occasion. The Applicant stated that he abused barbiturates and then started using heroin at around 15. The Applicant stated that he was using every day. The Applicant stated that he had used methamphetamines on and off over the years and had consumed alcohol. The Applicant stated that during the period 2008-2018 that he only used on one occasion. The Applicant described it as a slipup when he was coming off his medication and used to circumvent his cravings. The Applicant confirmed that in August 2018 he started using heroin again in Bendigo. The Applicant claims that he kept returning to illicit drug use because of his mental state and reiterated that he used drugs to try to forget what happened to him in institutional care.
28. The Applicant stated that if he was released into the community, he would not use drugs, he would work, he would lead a normal life and he would stay out of prison. The Applicant believed that he would not return to drugs because he had dealt with the child abuse issue, something that he had never brought up before, further that he had started engaging with professional help.
29. The Applicant advised that prior to his recent engagements with psychiatrists and psychologists for the purpose of his child abuse claim against the State of Victoria and with respect to the cancellation of his visa, that he had not engaged with psychologists or other mental health professionals in the past. The Applicant stated that his heroin cravings had been kept under control by a regular regime of methadone which he took daily.
30. The Applicant described how he had found out about relevant support services in Whyalla if he was to return to live there, and how he had found out about Luke Williams. The Applicant conceded that if he engaged Mr Williams for psychological counselling that there was no reason he would not be able to engage with him via video from the United Kingdom.
31. The Applicant advised that he had recently obtained a proof of aged person card and had also obtained a bankcard by completing the relevant paperwork emailing and then receiving the cards. The Applicant conceded that if he returned to the United Kingdom, he would be able to eventually engage with a psychologist. The Applicant stated that he had made no enquiries at this stage. The Applicant also expressed concern about methadone withdrawal if he was returned to the United Kingdom and there was a time lag between methadone treatment after departure from Australia. The Applicant believed that in due course he would be able to access relevant counselling in the United Kingdom.
32. The Applicant advised how he proposed to look for work with One Steel in Whyalla and advised that his asthma and emphysema would not be an impediment to doing hot and challenging work in the steel mill. The Applicant stated that he had been subject to regular drug testing in Whyalla.
33. Reference was made to a document in the joint hearing bundle at page 718 that noted that the Applicant advised that he had used morphine whilst working in Whyalla and had worked out how to circumvent a positive urine analysis. The Applicant stated that he had no recollection of this incident and had not attempted to deceive anybody whilst in employment in Whyalla.
34. The Applicant was asked about people that he had been in contact with since his most recent imprisonment and immigration detention. The Applicant advised that he was in regular contact with his late partner D prior to her death, that he was in contact with Aaron S in Whyalla and B F in Whyalla both former colleagues. He had also had intermittent contact with his half-brother J but had recently lost contact with him. The Applicant advised that he knew Aaron S through working together in Whyalla and that they would attend barbecues together, the Applicant would have drinks at his house, and he would see him during shift handovers.
35. Reference was made to Ms Cidoni's first report dated 20 December 2024 at paragraph 43. The paragraph referred to financial difficulties that the Applicant experienced in Western Australia that led to he and Ms K relocating to South Australia. The Applicant stated that he was working as a labourer in Western Australia, the GST was introduced by the government and his employer could no longer afford to keep him on. The Applicant had purchased a property in Western Australia during this period but could not repay the mortgage. These factors led to relocation to South Australia.
36. The Applicant gave evidence that he believed that he would be able to remain drug-free in the community with the support of counselling, engagement with trauma counselling, drug and alcohol guidance and through being engaged in full-time work. The Applicant also stated that the community was a safer environment than immigration detention.
37. The Tribunal asked the Applicant again whether he had ever been ordered by a court to undertake a drug rehabilitation program over his years of offending and his interaction with the criminal justice system. The Applicant stated on one occasion in South Australia he was directed to go into a rehabilitation program. The Applicant stated that he failed to complete the program, only spent a few days in the facility, and left the facility after an Asian man offered him drugs. The Applicant stated that this led to a breach of bail.
38. The Applicant conceded that eventually he would be able to link up with services in the United Kingdom and hopefully be able to link up with a methadone program.
39. The Applicant discussed that at the time of his sentencing in 2020 in Victoria that there was discussion with respect to the option of a drug court. However, it was dismissed because the Applicant was living in a car, the Drug Court was only being trialled at this time and did not become a permanent feature of the criminal justice system in Victoria until 2021.
40. The Applicant gave evidence that he believed that he would have a better future in Whyalla than in the United Kingdom. The Applicant described relocating and re-establishing himself in the United Kingdom as being overwhelming.
41. The Applicant gave evidence that apart from the period from 2008 to 2018 where he had been drug-free that there had been other periods during his life, that he had been drug-free as well. The Applicant confirmed that he had worked in a number of different occupations over time including at an Air Force Base in New South Wales and at power stations in Victoria.
42. Ms Cidoni gave evidence to the Tribunal. She advised that she was a registered psychologist and confirmed that she had provided two reports dated 20 December 2024 and a supplementary report dated 26 June 2025. She advised the Tribunal that she had administered two risk assessment tools on the Applicant, firstly VRAG, which was an objective assessment of risk based on static variables in a person's life. She had also administered HCR which looks at dynamic variables in a person's life. Ms Cidoni advised that the static variables for the Applicant were his long history of drug use, his criminal history, his breach of court orders, the young age in which he commenced offending, his lack of schooling, and she noted that the Applicant met 7 of the 12 static variables with respect to future risk.
43. Having regard to HCR 20 dealing with dynamic factors Ms Cidoni noted that this included the Applicant maintaining abstinence from drugs, attending counselling and treatment, obtaining and maintaining employment. Having applied these tests, Ms Cidoni determined that the Applicant's risk of recidivism was moderate.
44. Reference was made to findings made by a clinical psychologist working for the Victorian Parole Authority dated 31 May 2021, which determined the Applicant having a low risk of violent reoffending. Ms Cidoni advised that different testing tools were administered and that the tools that she had administered namely the VRAG, and the HCR-20 provided a more fulsome assessment. Ms Cidoni once again reiterated that based on evidence before her and additional evidence raised with her at hearing that she still opined the Applicant had a moderate risk of recidivism. Ms Cidoni believed that the Applicant's behaviour whilst in custody would factor into dynamic risk assessment. Ms Cidoni opined that the Applicant needed to follow through with his plans for counselling, psychological intervention, drug and alcohol counselling and noted that presently there is high motivation to do so because the Applicant wants to make a go of his life going forward. Ms Cidoni expressed concerns with respect to external variables being if a job does not happen, if housing is a problem, and proposed medical intervention does not come through.
45. The Tribunal raised with Ms Cidoni the prospect of the Applicant falling back into drug use because he had received financial compensation for child abuse in Victoria which appeared to be a significant amount. Ms Cidoni stated that this could be a problem. She noted that the Applicant had used methamphetamine in 2024 when he succumbed to a lapse in immigration detention. She reiterated that she still believed that the Applicant had a medium risk of recidivism. She noted that he had the support of a doctor, and psychologists set up for a return to Whyalla. She stated that heroin was a highly addictive drug, and that the addictive nature of the drug never went away. She noted that methadone helped with heroin related cravings. Mr Hughan made reference to the Applicant's statement where he had advised he would be willing to engage in financial counselling.
46. Mr Cidoni when questioned by the Respondent's representative advised that the Applicant had no family in the United Kingdom, no knowledge of how to access services or the national health scheme in that country which would be problematic. Of most concern was a delay in the re-administration of methadone if the Applicant was relocated to the United Kingdom which could lead to a risk of relapse. Further to this the Applicant had no social network in the United Kingdom, no family in the United Kingdom, no UK identity documents, no trauma support or mental health support, and that given his PTSD and substance abuse issues this would create a lot of stress.
47. Ms Cidoni conceded that the Applicant could in time access services and navigate application forms, but this would be difficult and challenging for him. Ms Cidoni opined that if the Applicant were to return to a familiar environment of Whyalla without his long-term partner since her death in April 2024 that there may be an impact, however grief differed very much from individual to individual.
48. The Respondent's representative noting that the Applicant suffered severe and chronic PTSD asked whether that diagnosis limited future prospects. Ms Cidoni noted that this was a barrier that the Applicant had to overcome however, at present he is not untreatable.
49. Evidence was obtained from Mr Aaron S, who advised that he met the Applicant in 2013 at work, and that they formed a close friendship over the following years. Mr S gave evidence of the Applicant's work role in the steel mill. Mr S stated that he believed there was a solid prospect of the Applicant obtaining work in Whyalla at the steel mill because of his experience. Mr S advised that he had observed the Applicant with his late partner and believed they were a good couple. Mr S advised that the Applicant took good care of his late partner.
50. Mr S advised that the Applicant could live in his home which is owned by his parents and which he shares with two dogs. Mr S advised that there was a bed ready for the Applicant. Mr S was aware of the fact that the Applicant had well laid plans for his return to Whyalla including linking in with his general practitioner and organising for counselling and support through a psychologist. Mr S advised that he had a problem with marijuana when he was a teenager but had managed to get through this and had not used drugs since that time and he was now 43 years old. Mr S stated that he believed the Applicant should be given an opportunity to restart his life in Whyalla and it would be detrimental to him to be returned to the United Kingdom.
51. In closing submissions Mr Hughan noted the protection of the Australian community is to be given the greatest weight and added that the community has a high tolerance for a person was lived in Australia from a young age. Mr Hughan submitted that the Applicant had not dealt with the trauma that led to his drug offending. Whilst in the prison system he had been reluctant to talk about this history because of the risk involved. The Applicant had not been able to seek psychological intervention in prison but had in immigration detention. The Applicant had been reluctant to talk about past trauma.
52. Reference was made to the findings of Ms Cidoni that the Applicant posed a moderate risk of violent reoffending. Mr Hughan stated that the Applicant was reliant on the report of Forensic Intervention Services in 2021, located at HB4 page 218 of the joint tender bundle which determined that the Applicant had a low risk of reoffending and that his conduct in the prison system had been good.
53. Having regard to risk, the Applicant had set up prospective trauma counselling if he is released into the community and relocates to Whyalla. The Applicant has undertaken to engage in drug and alcohol counselling in Whyalla and will continue with methadone maintenance under the supervision of Dr Francis. The Applicant has an offer of accommodation in Whyalla and with his compensation money has the funds to purchase real estate if required. There is an availability of work in the steel mill in Whyalla and Aaron S in his evidence indicated that there was a need for somebody with the Applicant's attributes to work in the steel mill.
54. Mr Hughan noted the 10 years that the Applicant had lived and worked in the Whyalla community drug free and crime free. It was submitted that his circumstances changed when his late partner was diagnosed with cancer and the couple relocated to Victoria. It was submitted that if all the supports are available to the Applicant in Whyalla it will mitigate the risk of the Applicant re-offending. It was noted that the Applicant's behaviour during his most recent term of imprisonment was good and there were no reports regarding violent behaviour, verbal aggression or property damage. It was noted that the Applicant was eligible to be paroled from prison, but his parole was denied because of pending deportation proceedings which meant that he served his full five years and eight months in prison. The result of this was he spent an additional two years in prison which precluded him from spending time with his late partner before she passed away.
55. Reference was made to the fact that the Applicant is currently on methadone maintenance therapy of 100 mg a day and that it would be difficult for the Applicant to return to the United Kingdom in the absence of this program being continued and delays in setting up such a program in the United Kingdom.
56. It was noted that having regard to strength, nature and duration of ties that the Applicant has to Australia that he has been in Australia since he was an infant. He worked for a lengthy period of time in Whyalla contributing to the community. The Applicant had a willingness to work in challenging and hot conditions. In addition to this the Applicant had made an ongoing contribution to the care of his late partner when she fell ill. This was a clear contribution to the Australian community. It was noted that the Applicant's late partner had provided statements of support in respect of the Applicant.
57. It was noted that there is no evidence of family violence and no evidence of the Applicant having any minor children.
58. Having regard to the expectations of the Australian community that the Tribunal should have regard to the authorities cited in the Applicant's statement of facts issues and contentions with respect to this and noted the fact that the Applicant had lived in Australia since a very young age.
59. It was submitted that there would be a number of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia. He will not be able to transition easily to a methadone program. He will need to access the national health care system in the United Kingdom the NHS, and the system of counselling and psychological support in the United Kingdom.
60. It was submitted that the child abuse, the Applicant experienced whilst in the care of the state in Victoria had impacted his life and that the state of Victoria had accepted liability for this child abuse. Reference was made to the various psychiatric reports which indicated that the Applicant had dealt with his abuse through the use of opiates and that his abuse of illicit substances had a nexus to the child abuse that he had suffered. The abuse had also caused the Applicant to suffer with post-traumatic stress disorder.
61. It was submitted that the reason that the Applicant became addicted to drugs and engaged in criminal offending was as a consequence of the post-traumatic stress disorder caused by this child abuse. It was noted that that the Victorian Government and the Australian Government had accepted responsibility for this class of persons and had apologised to them. Reference was made to the Royal commission findings with respect to institutional child abuse. It was acknowledged that this was a matter not listed in Direction 110, however it was something that was encompassed into this consideration with regard to the strength, nature and ties to Australia. Once again for emphasis it was noted that the Applicant is tied to Australia and always will be and that his character was forged in Australia. It was submitted that the Applicant is a person with strength and commitment to hard work. It was noted that both his strengths and weaknesses were Australian made and once again stated that his character was forged in Australia. It was noted that the Applicant is a person that fails the character test, but his character was made in Australia and very much what happened to him as a child led to his life pathway.
62. Ms Anderson stated that the Respondent relied on its statement of facts issues and contentions. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that significant weight should be given to primary consideration 1 and 5 and that these considerations outweighed the other primary considerations and other considerations. Reference was made to the serious nature and duration of the Applicants offending over time and comments by various justices in the District and Supreme Court with respect to the seriousness of the Applicants offending, at times viewed as extremely serious. It was further noted that the Applicants offending had devastated and impacted many people within Australia.
63. Having regard to risk it was submitted that the nature of harm to individuals and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further conduct was seen as moderate in the testing undertaken by Ms Cidoni in December 2024. Any such conduct would cause physical and financial harm and harm to road users. It was submitted that any material risk is unacceptable and that the risk of reoffending in this case was unacceptable. The evidence indicated that when the Applicant was stressed by a life event that he slipped into drug abuse and criminality. It was noted that the Applicant was in the very early stages of rehabilitation and had only engaged in drug and alcohol related counselling with a psychologist since he had been in immigration detention. It was noted that the Applicant had been given a warning with respect to his offending behaviour in 2008 by the Department but had continued to engage in criminal offending. Another risk factor that was identified was that the Applicant would not be subject to monitoring and supervision in the community by parole services. It was submitted that the Tribunal should favour the more recent findings of Ms Cidoni, psychologist, based on her reports of December 2024 and June 2025 over testing relating to a 2021 parole assessment in Victoria.
64. It was submitted that there is no evidence that the Applicant would be able to resume a role at the steel mill in Whyalla and this was based on supposition. There is no current offer of employment. The Applicant has not engaged with Mr Williams his prospective psychologist at this stage. It was submitted that primary consideration 1 weighed very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
65. It was conceded that family violence does not come into play in this review.
66. Having regard to the strength nature and duration of ties to Australia it was noted that the Applicant is estranged from his immediate family members and that his long-term de facto passed away in April 2024. The Applicant has two former friends from Whyalla with whom he hopes to re-engage and that apart from them the Applicant did not have any significant ties to people or family members in Australia.
67. It was noted that there are no minor children.
68. It was conceded that the legal consequences of the decision would be that the Applicant would be removed to the United Kingdom and held in immigration detention until such time as that was facilitated. With respect to the extent of impediments if removed it was conceded that the Applicant would face problems with respect to ongoing methadone treatment and engaging with relevant services in the United Kingdom due to his unfamiliarity with that country and its systems. There was nothing to indicate that he would not be able to avail himself of social supports and medical supports in that country. It was submitted that the Applicant had been able to engage with legal services with respect to this review and had managed to obtain his birth certificate from Scotland and a bankcard from within Australia which showed his ability to interact and engage with services. It was conceded that with respect to the extent of impediments if removed that the Tribunal should give some weight to this consideration in favour of revocation. Once again it was submitted that primary consideration 1 and 5 outweighed the other primary considerations in play and other considerations.

Migration Act

1. Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, relevantly:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph 501(7)(a), (b) or (c); and > > (b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

2. The character test referred to in s 501(3A) is outlined in s 501(6). Relevantly, s 501(6) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by s 501(7)). For the purposes of s 501(6)(a), and relevant to this matter, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
3. Where a visa has been cancelled as set out above, the Minister has a power under

s 501CA(4) to revoke the cancellation decision if satisfied that the visa holder passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.3 4. Where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the Applicant's has a right of review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.32

1. The issues for determination before the Tribunal are:

1. whether the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501 of the Migration Act, as defined in s 501(6); and

(b) if not, whether there is another reason why the original cancellation decision should be revoked.

2. The Applicant has conceded that he does not pass the character test prescribed under s 501(6)(a) as he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and therefore has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined under s 501(7). It follows that the Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) to have the mandatory visa cancellation revoked.
3. Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
4. Direction 110 sets out the principles which provide a framework "within which decision makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under section 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA". These are outlined as follows.

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

5. Thus, the question in issue is whether there is another reason why the original cancellation decision should be revoked.
6. This involves giving appropriate weight to the considerations in Ministerial Direction 110 (both primary and other), requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the visa cancellation, and assessing and evaluating those factors to form a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked.3
7. Direction 110 sets out Primary Considerations and Other Considerations. These are addressed under their respective headings below.

1. The Direction states that Primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
2. 8.1. Protection of the Australian community.

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

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

The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant's Conduct to Date

1. When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors, which the Tribunal will now address.
2. Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
3. The Applicant's criminal history as is captured in his Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check at annexure A.
4. The Applicant's criminal history is indicative of a number of violent crimes which are discussed below.
5. In 1981 in the Lismore District Court the Applicant was found guilty of a number of violent offences including assault and robbery and aid and abet robbery whilst armed for which he received a prison sentence indicative of the seriousness in which the offending was categorised by the District Court in Lismore.
6. In 1989 the Applicant was convicted in the Central Local Court in New South Wales with a range of offences that included malicious injury, along with convictions for breach of a recognisance, fail to appear, resist arrest, goods in custody and escape lawful custody. This tranche of offending led the Magistrate to impose a term of imprisonment, once again indicative of the serious nature in which this offending was viewed.
7. In 1991 the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales, sitting in Sydney, for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, steal motor vehicle and receiving. The Judge imposed a full-time custodial sentence with respect to this offending, once again indicative of the seriousness in which the offending had been viewed.
8. In 1994 in the Southport District Court the Applicant was convicted of stealing whilst armed with a dangerous weapon and in company as well as offences of stealing, receiving, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and break and enter with intent. The Judge imposed a full -time custodial sentence with respect to this offending imposing a sentence of 2 years imprisonment on each charge with the prison sentence to be suspended for a period of 4 years.
9. In 1998 the Applicant was convicted of common assault in the Ballina Local Court and sentenced to a term of 3 months imprisonment, a conviction and sentence that was upheld by the District Court in Lismore.
10. In April 2020 the County Court of Victoria, sitting in Melbourne found the Applicant guilty of armed robbery which related to the two incidences of robbery in an IGA supermarket where the Applicant was armed with a chisel and during which he shoved and threatened two female shop attendants in the course of their employment. The Applicant was also convicted of a number of offences which included burglary, theft, criminal damage and for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The Judge imposed a full-time custodial sentence once again indicative of the seriousness in which the criminal conduct was viewed.
11. Sentencing comments of various courts who have dealt with the Applicant have made reference to the nature of the Applicant's offending. Judge Lowrie in the District Court of South Australia in March 2004 described the offending behaviour of the Applicant as being "quite horrific in nature".
12. Judge Perry in the Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia in October 2004 noted that "the overall offending was very serious indeed and represented a persistent course of criminal conduct extending over a long period of time".
13. Judge Cannon in the County Court of Victoria in April 2020 concluded that the Applicant's offending "is most serious and warrants a punishment which is just in all of the circumstances and your conduct must be firmly denounced".
14. The evidence indicates that the Applicant did engage in crimes of a violent nature against women in the two robberies of the IGA supermarket where he shoved and threatened a female employee to access the till, and when he brandished a chisel at another female employee whilst he was attempting to exit the supermarket.
15. When the factors in Direction 110, 8.1.1(1)(a) are applied to the Applicant's criminal history involving crimes of violence, the Tribunal finds that these crimes are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian Community.
16. 8.1.1(1)(b) states that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described in this part of the Direction are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious.
17. There is no evidence that the Applicant has caused a person to enter into or to be a party to a forced marriage.
18. There is no evidence that the Applicant has committed crimes against government representatives or officials due to the positions that they hold.
19. It is not clear on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's offending which has included multiple break and enter and burglary offences over the years have impacted vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly or the disabled.
20. The sentencing comments of Judge Lowrie in the District Court of South Australia in March 2004, illustrate the volume of the Applicant's break and enter offending at that point in time. Judge Lowrie found the Applicant had committed a massive amount of offending (some 130 offences) many of which related to residential break and enters. This type of offending was repeated by the Applicant in 2018 and is captured in the sentencing comments of Judge Cannon in the County Court of Victoria on 15 April 2020 who makes extensive reference to the burglary and theft engaged in by the Applicant in 2018 in Victoria.
21. Having regard to any conduct that forms the basis for finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-makers opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c)). The Tribunal finds having regard to the Applicant's past criminal conduct that he is not of good character.
22. The Applicant's history in immigration detention has been uneventful.
23. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(c) the Applicant has been the subject of multiple custodial sentences for his offending behaviour. These full-time custodial sentences in the view of the Tribunal are indicative of the seriousness in which the offending behaviour was viewed by the Courts over many years.
24. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(d) there is clear evidence before the Tribunal of the impact of the Applicant's offending on the victims of his offending. With reference to Judge Lowrie's sentencing comments in the District Court of South Australia in March 2004, Judge Lowrie noted that "I have some 20 victim impact statements. You, no doubt, are aware of the problems of taking people's treasures, irreplaceable items that always causes great harm". Judge Lowrie continues "I have had regard to 20 victim impact statements I do not propose to go into each of them in detail suffice to say that your offending has had a devastating effect on many, many people. I hope you have read the same. Many of those people have reported difficulty sleeping and no longer feeling safe in their own home and ongoing anxiety as a result of your behaviour. The common thread in all the statements is a feeling of being violated. Some people have lost irreplaceable personal items, such as wedding rings, and family heirlooms from loved and deceased family members. You stole irreplaceable items from these people in order to buy drugs. For the victims who were present at the time you broke into their homes, the effect has even been more devastating".
25. The impact of the Applicant's offending is also captured in the comments of Her Honour Judge Cannon in the County Court of Victoria sitting in Melbourne from April 2020. Judge Cannon described the Applicant's offending as "most serious and warrants a punishment which is just in all the circumstances and your conduct must be firmly denounced. In relation to the burglaries, you were prepared to violate the sanctity of the homes of a number of people, taking items that were of value, and which have not been recovered. In relation to the armed robberies, you behaved in a most frightening manner on each of the occasions that you offended, committing the offences in broad daylight, and when customers were present. On each of the occasions, the people who you pushed and/or threatened were females who are doing nothing more than trying to earn an honest living. I have little doubt that the victims in respect of each of the offences, especially charges 6, 9, 12 and 13, had been traumatised by your offending. Although no Victim Impact Statements have been provided, it takes little imagination to make this observation about the impact of your offending upon the victims".
26. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(e) the frequency of the non-citizens offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness the Tribunal finds as follows. The evidence indicates a consistent pattern of offending by the Applicant as an adult. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has engaged in violent offending from 1989 through to 2018. The Tribunal acknowledges that during this period there was an extended period in which the Applicant did not offend between 2008 and 2018. A recurrent feature in the Applicant's offending is that he has been willing to use violence with respect to his offending. The Applicant's offending in 2018 involved violence when the Applicant pushed an employee aside to steal money from the till and to produce and brandish a chisel at another employee who tried to grab the Applicant before he absconded from the IGA supermarket. This evidence in the view of the Tribunal is indicative of a trend of increasing seriousness. The Tribunal further finds that with respect to the frequency of the non-citizens offending that this frequency is captured in the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check found at Annexure A.
27. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(f) the Tribunal finds that there has been a clear cumulative effect of repeat offending by the Applicant as evidence from his offending history from 1981 to 2018. The evidence indicates that over the course of his offending history the Applicant has broken into the homes of many Australians and stolen their personal and at times valuable possessions. It has as discussed, impacted the victims of the offending causing trauma and stress beyond the act of offending. This offending has no doubt had a consequential impact upon the Australian insurance industry. The Applicant's offending has involved breach of bail offences, and his extensive offending history has led to countless hours of work for the judiciary, the police, probation and parole, prison officers, welfare officers all of which would have caused a cumulative effect and would have come at a significant cost to the taxpayer.
28. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(g) there is no evidence that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
29. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(h) the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was formally warned in writing about the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status on 3 April 2008.
30. Having regard to 8.1.1(i) this does not apply to the Applicant as the evidence indicates that since arriving in Australia in 1963 the Applicant has never left Australia.
31. There is no evidence that the Applicant has committed an offence, or other serious conduct, in another country.
32. Having regard to the Applicant's history of violent offending between 1981 and 2018 the Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the offending weighs heavily against revocation of his Class BF Transitional (permanent) visa. The Tribunal finds that the factors in 8.1.1 of the Direction that can be weighed in the Applicant's favour are significantly outweighed by the factors that weigh against him.
33. The sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct

1. 8.1.2. The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

(1) 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 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) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively: > > the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > > evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). > > where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

2. The Applicant's representative has submitted that the Applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The Applicant's representative notes that the Applicant's offending has largely been attributable to his long-term heroin addiction and as a consequence of the personal difficulties that he has experienced from untreated childhood trauma. The Applicant's representative claims that the Applicant's childhood trauma was fully confronted in 2023. It has been submitted that the Applicant has insight into the impact of child sexual abuse on his life and has successfully litigated and received financial compensation from the Victorian Government in 2024. Further the Applicant is committed to long-term psychological treatment to address the child-abuse trauma and underlying cause of his drug dependence and offending.
3. The Applicant claims that he is genuinely remorseful for his offending. This is evidenced in the psychologist's report of Ms Cidoni from December 2024 where it was noted that the Applicant had empathy for his victims, and he had used funds from his financial settlement from the Victorian Government to pay victim compensation of $14,300 that had been ordered by the Magistrates Court in Melbourne when he was sentenced in July 2020.
4. It was submitted on the Applicant's behalf that his Victorian prison records have been positive and indicative of good behaviour and a strong work ethic while imprisoned. The submission notes that the Applicant would have met the prerequisites for parole, however, the impact of his visa cancellation resulted in parole being denied to him.
5. It was submitted that the Applicant has commenced opiate substitute treatment, first buprenorphine, and more recently methadone. It is noted that the Applicant has been on a daily methadone treatment first in prison and continuing in immigration detention providing him with stability from his drug cravings.
6. The SFIC submitted on behalf of the Applicant dated 10 June 2025 notes that the Applicant has been engaged in individual drug and alcohol counselling in immigration detention since May 2024. Further, that he had found it helpful and was committed to continuing with it in the community. It noted at paragraph 88 that "he has admitted that he used methylamphetamine on one occasion whilst in detention but has used this failing to re-affirm his commitment to remain abstinent of illicit drugs".
7. The Applicant has developed a plan for his release into the community. This plan involves him returning to Whyalla, attempting to obtain work in the local steel mill, living with a friend, engaging in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and engaging with regular psychological intervention to address child-abuse trauma and addiction.
8. It was noted on behalf of the Applicant that psychologist Ms Cidoni believes that the Applicant's prospects for rehabilitation are "moderate to good, contingent upon receiving a comprehensive and tailored support plan".
9. The Applicant's representative submits that based on these factors the Tribunal should conclude that the risk of any re-offending is low and that there is a negligible risk of any serious re-offending.
10. The Respondent has submitted that the nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is significant and multifaceted. The Respondent submits that the harm caused to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in offending based on his offending history would include physical and psychological harm; financial harm; burden on public health and law enforcement; and harm to road users. The Respondent's submission is that the nature of harm occasioned by further offending by the Applicant based on his past offending history is unacceptable to the Australian community.
11. The Respondent has noted that when assessed by a psychiatrist Dr Siva Bala, for the purpose of his claims against the State of Victoria that Dr Bala noted that the Applicant had "not sought help for treatment', 'never engaged in psychological or psychiatric treatment' and had 'abused various substances for many years' including 'alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, illicitly obtained psychotropic medications and opiates from mid-adolescence until the present'.
12. Dr Bala formed the view that the Applicant required 'long-term psychological and psychiatric treatment in a setting of abstinence from illicit substances' and 'opiate substitution therapy' and 'fortnightly visits with a psychologist for two years and monthly visits for another three years'' 'monthly visits with a psychiatrist for two years, followed by three monthly visits for the following three years' 'three monthly reviews with a general practitioner to monitor physical health problems associated with substance use', with Dr Bala opining that the Applicant 'will never enter remission, given the chronicity and the persistence of symptoms'.
13. Indeed, the Respondent notes that Dr Bala concluded that the Applicants chronic and complex trauma would likely require 2 to 5 years of combined psychological and psychiatric intervention and further concluded that the Applicant was at 'high risk of relapsing into substance use due to untreated, active post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that predispose him to dysfunctional coping mechanisms by substance use'.
14. The Respondent further noted that a psychiatrist, Dr Gregor Schultz, engaged by lawyers representing the State of Victoria in a report dated 6 June 2024, diagnosed the Applicant with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and unspecified depressive disorder and a significant opioid disorder. It was noted by Dr Schultz that the Applicant had not received any therapy in jail that had only seen a psychologist in immigration detention every 2 to 3 weeks and that his conditions 'have likely stabilised with the caveat that he clearly is in a precarious position, facing deportation'. Dr Shultz recommended that the Applicant needed psychological treatment on a fortnightly basis for 12 to 18 months which included a trauma component to deal with his condition and considered the Applicant's prognosis to be mixed in the context of him having limited support, being estranged from his immediate family and having a history of significant substance abuse.
15. The Respondent noted that Ms Cidoni the psychologist engaged by the Applicant had applied the VRAG actuarial tool to determine static risk factors and had also applied the HCR-20-the 3 to assess dynamic risk factors.
16. Ms Cidoni determined that the identified static risk factors for the Applicant were his long history of violent offending, his persistent antisocial behaviour, significant childhood trauma, chronic substance abuse, his mental health issues such as depression and an unstable emotional state and challenging future circumstances. These included the potential of visa cancellation, loss of support networks and health complications which Ms Cidoni determined complicated 'risk management and treatment adherence'.
17. Having regard to dynamic risk factors Ms Cidoni assessed the Applicant's risk of violent offending to be moderate and that his dynamic risk factors included childhood instability, abuse, early exposure to violence, use of maladaptive coping mechanisms and his clinical presentation. The Respondent noted that Ms Cidoni concluded that the Applicant had demonstrated some insight into his past actions, however opined that the Applicant's 'understanding of the factors influencing his behaviour remains limited' and that he exhibited 'poor emotional regulation in unresolved trauma, contributing to his vulnerability to stress and substance relapse'.
18. The Respondent noted that Ms Cidoni formed the view that the Applicant required trauma-informed therapy, access to substance abuse treatment, grief counselling following the loss of his partner Ms K, engagement with mental health services, participation in skill-building programs, problem-solving skills, stress management and close monitoring and supervision in the community.
19. The Respondent submits that there are insufficient protective factors that are in place to mitigate the risk of re-offending. These are as follows.
20. The Applicant has not obtained a secure offer of employment in Whyalla and his objectives in this respect are based on supposition.
21. The Applicant has not completed the extensive treatment options that have been identified for him going forward which require a commitment to years of therapeutic intervention and close monitoring and oversight.
22. The fact that the Applicant no longer has the support and motivation of his long-term de facto Ms K as a consequence of her passing, in April 2024.
23. The length of the Applicant's offending history and significant periods of imprisonment and non-custodial sentences have not mitigated the risk of further offending over time. In addition to this the Applicant did not heed the formal written warning given to him by immigration in 2008 about the consequences of further offending on his migration status.
24. The fact that the Applicant's risk of re-offending has been assessed to be moderate by Ms Cidoni in her assessment of the Applicant in December 2024 which led to a report dated 20 December 2024 and a supplementary report dated 26 June 2025.
25. That the Applicant's rehabilitation has not been properly tested in the community.
26. The long history of offending over many decades castes significant doubt on the Applicant's ability to be of good behaviour going forward.
27. The assessment of risk requires a decision-maker to evaluate not only the potential consequences of further offending, but also the likelihood that such consequences will manifest.
28. The Tribunal in looking at risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct has had regard to the Applicant's criminal history outlined in Annexure A. That history indicates a long and protracted interaction with the criminal justice system, including multiple burglary charges, multiple counts of stealing and receiving, multiple counts of break and enter a dwelling house with intent, multiple counts of breaching reconnaissance and bail, of theft, and a propensity to use threats, intimidation and violence in order to affect a criminal outcome when required.
29. The Tribunal concedes that this protracted offending history has been within the context of a long-term drug addiction that started in the Applicant's early teens. The Applicant in 2023 initiated an action against the State of Victoria for the child-abuse that he suffered whilst in the protection of the state at age 15. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has received financial compensation from the state in this respect. The Applicant claims that his history of criminality and his history of drug abuse is largely referable to him suffering child abuse as a teenager.
30. The evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal at review indicates that the Applicant has largely repressed his child-abuse history for a range of reasons and that he recently confronted and consequently sought reparation for the child-abuse in 2023. The Applicant is yet to embark on a course of recommended psychosocial counselling, which he has been advised to engage in, to address the deep-seated impacts that the child-abuse has had upon his life.
31. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has engaged in illicit drug use since he was a teenager. The evidence indicates that the Applicant suffers with both post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder. The Applicant's mental health conditions have been exacerbated by his long-term drug addiction, trauma that he suffered in his pre-adult life, the impact of caring for his late partner, and the impact of child abuse only recently addressed in 2023.
32. The recurrent features of the period that the Applicant lived in the community without offending between 2008 and 2018 were characterised by a number of factors. Firstly, he was living in the community with his long-term de facto partner Ms D K. Secondly, he was engaged in full-time work in the steel mill in Whyalla.
33. The evidence indicates that when the Applicant and Ms K relocated to Victoria at her request following her cancer diagnosis that the Applicant and Ms K were not able to get their life in order following relocation. The evidence indicates that Ms K was able to find accommodation for herself that did not include the Applicant. The evidence indicates that the additional supports that the Applicant and Ms K expected to find in Bendigo did not materialise. The Applicant because of a lack of identity documents was not able to obtain a carers pension during this time. The evidence indicates that these cumulative stressors lead the Applicant to quickly return to heroin abuse and criminality to fund that abuse.
34. The Tribunal finds on the basis of the evidence before it that if the plans that the Applicant has for his post detention release into the community falter, there is a real risk of the Applicant lapsing back into drug use and criminality to fund it. This is borne out in the various medical and psychological assessments that have been made of the Applicant for the purposes of his compensation claim in 2023 for child abuse, and his review of the cancellation before the Tribunal.
35. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has never spent an extended period of time in a drug rehabilitation facility. Indeed, when questioned by the Tribunal at the review hearing about any directives that had been made by Magistrates or Judges over the course of his sentencing history with respect to drug rehabilitation, the Applicant stated that on one occasion he had been directed to a facility in South Australia as part of bail conditions. The Applicant stated that he only stayed in the facility for a couple of days and left the facility after an Asian man sold him illicit drugs. He acknowledged that this led to him being in breach of bail conditions. There is no evidence of the Applicant of his own volition seeking out or indeed entering a drug rehabilitation program and the Applicant stated that he had never attended narcotics anonymous or alcoholics anonymous meetings.
36. The evidence indicates that the Applicant since being placed in immigration detention has only liaised in drug and alcohol counselling with a psychologist for one session every 2 to 3 weeks. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any long-term engagement with a psychologist in the past to address drug addiction issues.
37. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that two psychiatrists along with Ms Cidoni a psychologist had all formed the view that the Applicant had a range of complex psychological and psychiatric conditions that would require significant oversight, years of therapeutic commitment and close monitoring and supervision.
38. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant in comprehensive testing administered by Ms Cidoni in November 2024 found the Applicant to have a moderate risk of re-offending and the Tribunal finds having regard to the Applicant's offending history that any risk is too great a risk.
39. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not spent anytime living in the community on his own since the inception of his de facto relationship in 1997 and how the Applicant will respond to life without his long-term life partner is difficult to predict.
40. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant's behaviour whilst in prison and in immigration detention has been good and that he exhibited a strong work ethic working in the prison kitchen. The Applicant's two friends from Whyalla have provided evidence of the strong work ethic of the Applicant whilst he worked in the steel industry between 2008 and 2018. The Tribunal finds that despite these endorsements the Applicant's plans for his release into the community remain untested and as has been canvassed he has no firm job offer. The Applicant has not commenced any engagement with his proposed psychologist Mr Luke Williams and whether this will be a successful and beneficial therapeutic relationship going forward is open to conjecture.
41. The Tribunal finds that in circumstances where the Applicant's crimes that he may commit in the future could cause physical, financial and psychological harm to the Australian community and given that the likelihood of further offending is moderate based on psychological testing of the Applicant in December 2024 by Ms Cidoni, this consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily against a decision to revoke the cancellation.

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which indicates that the Applicant has engaged in family violence and hence this consideration is afforded neutral weight by the Tribunal.

1. Primary Consideration 2 is not relevant and accordingly is given neutral weight.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

1. Having regard to this primary consideration Direction 110 states the following:

(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 whether to 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: a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community b) 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.

2. The Tribunal must (8.3(1)) consider any impact of its decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
3. Paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction allows for the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community.
4. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant's mother, stepmother, two brothers and two stepbrothers are part of his immediate family members in Australia. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has a number of aunts and uncles and cousins in Australia.
5. The evidence indicates the Applicant is completely estranged from his mother and has been since he was a young man of 22. The evidence indicates that the Applicant is also estranged from his stepmother, his two brothers and his two stepbrothers. There is no evidence that the Applicant is connected with any of his aunts, uncles or cousins, resident in Australia.
6. The evidence indicates that the Applicant had a strong connection to Australia in the form of his de-facto relationship with the late D K, an Australian citizen, which commenced in 1997 and ended with her death in April 2024.
7. It is apparent from the review the Applicant has few close friends in the community. One such friend Mr Aaron S gave evidence to the Tribunal at review as to their friendship based on a previous work relationship that ended in 2018. The Applicant gave evidence that he hopes to reconnect with his late partner's brother Mr M K.
8. The Applicant has provided statements from two friends Aaron S and B F who have attested to his past work ethic in Whyalla and his good character, particularly, with regard to the care that he provided to Ms K.
9. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has resided in Australia since he was an infant arriving in the country in 1963.
10. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant commenced offending as a teenager and that his adult offending was evident from 1980.
11. The Tribunal finds that weight should be given to the fact that the Applicant spent a productive decade from 2008 through to 2018 working in the steel industry in Whyalla in South Australia. Further to this the Tribunal finds that weight should be given to the fact that the Applicant provided care to his late partner Ms K during periods of her illness and incapacity when he was not confined in prison, and indeed to the time he has spent in Australia since arriving as an infant.
12. The evidence indicates that any positive contribution made by the Applicant to the Australian community is significantly outweighed by his significant offending history. His many terms of imprisonment effectively removed the Applicant from the community and inhibited any ability to make a positive contribution. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant whilst in prison exhibited a strong work ethic, working in the prison kitchen, and that he volunteered to assist a fellow prisoner suffering from cancer.
13. When all of these factors are taken into account this consideration is given moderate weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. Primary Consideration 3 is given moderate weight in favour of revocation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION

1. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has never had children, and that this consideration is not relevant, and the Tribunal accordingly gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. Primary Consideration 4 should be given neutral weight.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. The Tribunal notes that Primary Consideration 5 of Direction 110 states the following.

(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. > > (2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind: > > In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Applicant has breached this expectation through his criminal conduct. > > a) acts of family violence; or > > b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage; > > c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect; > > d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or > > e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or > > f) worker exploitation. > > (3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community > > (4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

2. The Applicant's representative concedes that the expectations of the Australian community weigh against the Applicant, however the Applicant's representative argues that it does not do so in a manner which outweighs other favourable considerations in this case.
3. The Applicant's representative submits that the weight with respect to this consideration requires a balancing process for the decision-maker to determine in the light of individual facts and circumstances in the case at hand. Reference was made to judicial authorities and Tribunal authorities with respect to the approach that can be taken to this consideration. The Tribunal authorities cited showed that in consideration of the expectations of the Australian community that consideration could be given to the nature and circumstances of the offending, reference to the Applicant's individual circumstances including steps to mitigate reoffending, the extent of time a person had been in Australia, and demonstrated good behaviour over lengthy periods of time.
4. Reference was made to the Federal Court case of FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454, which was referable to an earlier Ministerial Directive 65. The Applicant's representative submitted that FYBR "clearly indicated that it was permissible for both primary and other considerations to limit the extent to which expectations of the Australian community are given effect, in a decision concerning whether to revoke mandatory cancellation".
5. The Applicant's representative further argued that the consideration with respect to the expectations of the Australian community "is capable of being outweighed by countervailing considerations as arise and that are relevant to the case".
6. The Applicant's representative argued at hearing that higher tolerance should be apportioned to this consideration if a person has lived in Australia from a very young age. This factor is an important matter that is required to be weighed up in other contexts of Direction 110 such as in 8.3(2)(a) dealing with strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, however, it does not in the view of the Tribunal provide a reason for giving this primary consideration less weight.
7. The Respondent submits that the expectations of the Australian community had to be applied "normatively".
8. The Respondent's submissions are that the nature of the Applicant's offences over time are such that the Australian community would expect that his visa would remain cancelled. The Respondent noted the fact that the Applicant's offending included the perpetration of violence and the use of weapons on multiple occasions.
9. The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not meet the Australian communities expectations that he would obey the laws of this country and that community expectation would be that his visa should remain cancelled.
10. The Respondent contends that the Tribunal is able to reduce the relative weight attributed to the expectations of the Australian community as against the other considerations as part of its balancing exercise of the considerations contemplated by the Direction. However, the Respondent submits in this case that the expectations of the Australian community should be given significant weight because of the Applicant's underlying character concerns.
11. The Direction makes it clear, that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while they are in Australia. When a non-citizen engages in serious conduct in breach of this expectation then the Australian community expects the government not to allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.
12. For the following reasons the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant's adult offending history commenced in 1980, and continued through to 2018, during which time the Applicant repeatedly breached Australian criminal law. The nature of the Applicant's offending involved crimes of violence that included assault and robbery, robbery whilst armed and malicious injury.
13. The Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel a person's visa if serious character concerns are raised through the commission of serious crimes. Indeed, the expectation applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
14. Upon consideration of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the expectations of the Australian community, particularly given the community's intolerance for any form of violence weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against a decision to revoke the cancellation.

1. It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9(1) of the Direction. These are considered under their respective headings below.

1. Pursuant to Direction 110 at 9.1 the Tribunal needs to take account the fact that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to removal from Australia as soon as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section of the Act. Accordingly, if the Tribunal does not revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, he will be held in immigration detention until such time as he can be removed from Australia.
2. Other legal consequences of the decision include a prohibition on applying for other visas, except for a Protection visa or a Bridging R visa under s 501E, and a permanent exclusion from Australia for visas subject to Special Return Criteria 5001(c).
3. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was born in Scotland and that he never took out Australian citizenship, despite living in Australia since 1963. It will be incumbent on the Australian authorities to clarify the Applicant's eligibility for entry and citizenship within the United Kingdom prior to his removal from Australia during which time the Applicant will be held in immigration detention. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has applied for and received a Scottish birth certificate.
4. The Respondent notes in its submission to the Tribunal that the above-mentioned legal consequences flow naturally from the intended operation of the Act.
5. The Applicant in this case does not contend that non-refoulement obligations are relevant or arise with respect to him.
6. None of these consequences would be desirable from the Applicant's perspective and hence this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.

1. Having regard to consideration 9.2, the extent of impediments if removed from Australia the Applicant's representative has noted that the Applicant would face substantial impediments if removed to the United Kingdom. First and foremost is the fact that the United Kingdom is a country in which the Applicant has never lived and left as an infant in 1963. The Applicant is now 63 years old and has significant mental health and other chronic health issues related to his long-term drug addiction and the Applicant's representative submits that this creates a high risk of an overall deterioration in the Applicant's health if removed from Australia.
2. The Applicant's representative notes that the Applicant has been diagnosed with complex trauma predominantly related to childhood sexual abuse which has manifested itself as complex post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder. The Applicant also has a long-term opioid disorder.
3. The Applicant's representative strongly stressed that the Applicant is currently stable on methadone treatment of 100mg daily for his heroin dependence and takes various medications for his asthma and emphysema. The Applicant is also taking sleeping tablets to address issues with insomnia. The Applicant's representative noted the Applicant medical history "lists Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. The Applicant's representative has argued that a transition to the United Kingdom involving a long flight and a transition to the health system in the United Kingdom could mean that the Applicant will miss out on his daily methadone maintenance which could lead to cravings and other severe health impacts.
4. The Applicant's representative has made reference to the report of Ms Cidoni that the Applicant's unresolved trauma and mental health issues would be exacerbated if removed from Australia. The Tribunal notes that Ms Cidoni in her oral evidence to the Tribunal held the belief that the Applicant would eventually be able to link in with relevant psychiatric, and psychological services, however, there could be a delay in him being able to do this.
5. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant feared a lack of ready documentation with respect to entering the United Kingdom which would possibly lead to a fatal treatment gap in his methadone maintenance program and access to other necessary health services.
6. The Applicant's representative conceded that the Applicant had experience in the steel industry and there may be the possibility of engaging in a similar industry in the United Kingdom, however it will be hampered by his criminal history, his age, his mental health issues and his physical health issues. The Applicant's representative submitted that this consideration weighed heavily in favour of revocation.
7. The Respondent has submitted that the Applicant is now 63 years of age and concedes that he does suffer with a number of complex medical conditions which include emphysema and asthma and also suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a significant opioid disorder in remission.
8. The Respondent acknowledges the fact that the Applicant is likely to face emotional hardship in the United Kingdom. However, the Respondent notes that the United Kingdom is a country which is linguistically and culturally very similar to Australia and submits that the Applicant will not experience any significant cultural or linguistic challenges.
9. The Respondent contends that the welfare and health systems in Australia and the United Kingdom are not dissimilar, and the Respondent submits that the Applicant has not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would experience difficulty accessing appropriate treatment upon his arrival in the United Kingdom.
10. Overall, the Respondent accepts that the Applicant may face some challenges in relocating to the United Kingdom and that this 'other' consideration weighs in favour of the Applicant, however, it is outweighed by primary considerations 1 and 5.
11. The Respondent's submission notes that the Applicant had received a financial settlement from the Victorian government which he will be able to apply in the United Kingdom for the same reasons that he intended to apply it in Australia, such as the purchase of a residential property. The Respondent submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would not have access to the social, medical or economic services available in the United Kingdom that are generally available to all British citizens. Overall, the Respondent contends that the extent of the Applicant's impediments if removed will be limited.
12. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's submissions that he may experience initial difficulty in accessing the welfare, health and drug rehabilitation programmes available to him in the United Kingdom. The Applicant did concede that he believed that he would eventually be able to work the UK system out. The Applicant's representative noted that any gap in the Applicant's methadone maintenance program during the period of removal and re-settlement in the United Kingdom could be detrimental to the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts that this may be the case, however, the Tribunal finds that any removal undertaken by the Government would have to be done having regard to the Applicant's medical needs so that his health is not compromised in the process.
13. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant because of his age, his criminal history and the fact that he has been removed from the workforce since 2018 may be impeded in finding suitable employment in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, in this respect the Applicant will have some sort of safety net, his Victorian compensation payment, which he will be able to utilise in the interim.
14. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

1. With respect to 'other' consideration 9.3, namely the impact on Australian business interests both the Applicant and the Respondent concede that this consideration does not apply, and that the Tribunal should afford neutral weight to this consideration.

1. Having regard to the evidence before it the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
2. Having close regard to the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal has taken into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9 of the Direction which are relevant to this decision. The Tribunal has duly considered the matters raised by the Applicant in this review.
3. The following considerations weigh very heavily against a decision to revoke the cancellation:

(a) Primary Consideration 1, Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(b) Primary Consideration 5, The expectations of the Australian community.

1. Primary Consideration 2 is not relevant and hence given neutral weight.
2. Primary Consideration 3 is given moderate weight in favour of revocation.
3. Primary Consideration 4 is not relevant and hence given neutral weight.
4. To the extent that they are relevant, the Other Considerations weigh in favour of the revocation.
5. The Tribunal has been tasked with making a decision that has very harsh and indeed lifelong consequences for the Applicant. The Tribunal in doing so is cognisant of the fact that the Applicant has resided in Australia for most of his life since arriving in Australia from Scotland as an infant.
6. In making the decision the Tribunal is guided by the confines of Direction 110. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant's risk of causing harm either direct or indirect has been assessed as moderate. Given the Applicant's criminal history to date the Tribunal finds that any risk is too great a risk. The Applicant has a very long criminal history and there would be strong community interest in having the Applicant removed from the Australian community which will protect the Australian community from the risk of serious harm going forward.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the visa cancellation.

1. The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa is affirmed.

Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence) (2)

Non-aggravated serious trespass (non-residential) (2),

Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence) (25),

Aggravated serious criminal trespass (residence not occupied) (2),

Driver's license disqualification 24 MONTHS from 12/3/04

Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence)

VAG POSSESSION OF PROPERTY SUSPECTED STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED (ON 20/2/01)

[Counts 1] Fine: $200; Disq. Hold / OBT MDL 3 MONTHS Mand.

[Counts 1] Fine: $700; DISQ Hold / OBT MDL 5 MONTHS

Wilful & Unlawful Damage to Property (ON / ABT 29.6.94)

Possn. Property Suspected Stolen OR Unlawfully Obtained (ON 21.6.94)

Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (3 Charges on 21.6.94)

Attempted Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent in the Night-Time

Attempted Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (on 21.6.94)

Recomm. to be considered for parole AFTER serving 2 YEARS

Terms of IMP. are to have effect from the date of Arrest - 21.6.94

PURS. TO S. 158 OF THE PEN. & SENT. ACT

Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle for the Purpose of Facilitating the Commission of an Indictable Offence (2 Charges on 1.11.89)

Stealing Whilst Armed with a Dangerous Weapon and in Company (on 1.11.89)

Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (on 7.10.89)

1. Receiving (Plea of Guilty to ALT Charge Accepted by Crown in Full Discharge of Indictment)

Possn. Utensil Used in Connection with the Administration of a Dangerous Drug (24/11/87)

Live in Part Off Earnings of Prostitution (BTN 28/2 & 28/3/87)

Sentence Varied by Ordering Appellant to be Returned

6 MONTHS Youth Training Centre on EACH Charge. Concurrent.

[1] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (10 June 2025), [88].