SENTENCING COMMENTS COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA 6 JUNE 2023

1. The Applicant was 24 years old when he was sentenced for his most recent offending on 6 June 2023. Judge Chambers made reference to the offending behaviour.

On Saturday, 25 January 2020, you contacted the victim by Facebook and asked him to collect you from the Berwick train station and drive you to Hampton Park. You told him you were interested in purchasing a car he was looking to sell. You had also been in contact with your co-offender, Mr Eli Constable that day and asked him to attend the station at the same time as the victim. You told the co-offender to bring gloves and a balaclava, in order to disguise himself, telling him, "no face, no case". > > On the following day, Sunday, 26 January 2020, you met Mr Constable in the car park of the Cranbourne Railway Station and discussed what was going to take place with Mr Susan. Mr Constable showed you a steak knife he had brought with him. After this, you stood on the nature strip while Mr Constable hid behind some bushes on the opposite side of the road. You then called Mr Susan and directed him to meet you at the Cranbourne Railway Station. > > Mr Susan drove to the Cranbourne Railway Station in his 2016 Holden SV6 Utility. When he arrived, you called him, asking that he pick you up from the station car park. Mr Susan drove into the car park, where he met you at approximately 1pm. You asked Mr Susan if you could put your satchel or bag in the boot of his car. > > Mr Susan agreed to open the boot, and got out of his car to assist you, leaving the keys in the ignition with the car running. > > As he was returning to the driver side door, Mr Susan heard some footsteps as Mr Constable approached from behind the bushes. Mr Constable was dressed in black, with the hood of his jumper pulled over his head, and a mask covering his entire face, other than his eyes. He was holding the knife he had shown you earlier, in his right hand. While he held the knife, Mr Constable demanded that the victim handover his possessions, stating "Where are the fucking keys? Where is your wallet and your phone? What's your phone PIN". > > Mr Constable threatened to stab the victim stating, "Do you want to die"? While this was happening, you also made demands for the PIN code to the victim's phone. > > Mr Susan was terrified by these actions. Believing he was going to be stabbed, Mr Susan handed over his wallet and gave you both the PIN for his phone. He gave the two of you a false PIN number for his bankcard, which you had also demanded. You then stole the victim's 2016 Holden SV6 Utility. You drove the car, with Mr Constable in the passenger seat, out of the car park. > > Your conduct in stealing the victim's car, knowing that your co-offender had threatened him with a knife, is the subject of Charge 1-aggravated carjacking. During this incident you also stole the victim's wallet and mobile phone, giving rise to the charge of theft, which is Charge 2. > > After stealing the victim's vehicle, you drove to a liquor store in Cranbourne and used the victim's bankcard to purchase several cans of Woodstock bourbon over two transactions for $40.98 and $59.97 respectively. This conduct forms the basis of charge 3-obtaining a financial advantage by deception. > > After his car was stolen, Mr Susan hailed down another motorist, who assisted him to call police. The police arrived at the Cranbourne Railway Station at 1:37pm Mr Susan told them one of the offenders was a friend from school, who he knew by the name of "Marcello". > > The police traced Mr Susan's phone using mobile phone towers and determined that it was in the Cranbourne North area. Then, at approximately 1:45pm, police observed you and Mr Constable walking in the Cranbourne North area. When the police approached you, you both ran off in separate directions. When police caught up to Mr Constable, he gave them his name and date of birth. > > Another police officer arrested you at a shopping complex in Cranbourne North. Upon being searched, the police located Mr Susan's bank accounts and the key to his car in a bag you were carrying. You identified the area you had parked the stolen vehicle, which was then recovered."

2. Judge Chambers noted that "the legislature has made it clear that aggravated carjacking is a serious offence as reflected by the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and the mandatory minimum non-parole period of three years imprisonment".
3. Judge Chambers noted that the offending was not sophisticated, however it was planned and instigated by the Applicant who recruited the co-offender, arranging for him to attend the crime scene wearing gloves and a balaclava. Judge Chambers noted that "you were aware that the co-offender had a knife on him and made demands of the victim when he was being threatened with a knife. It is fortunate the victim was not physically injured, and that the confrontation did not escalate beyond the threat to inflict harm with a knife".
4. Judge Chambers noted that the offending impacted the victim. Judge Chambers noted that "the fact the co-offender was disguised, with his face covered, whilst brandishing a knife, meant he presented as a terrifying figure to the victim". Indeed, the victim Mr Susan described that he feared for his life during "these terrifying events".
5. Judge Chambers noted that "this was undeniably serious offending. Your moral culpability for the offending, which was instigated and planned by you, is high".
6. Judge Chambers noted that the Applicant's moral culpability was informed by his personal circumstances. Judge Chambers made reference to the Applicant's migration history and the breakdown of his parents' relationship. Judge Chambers noted that the Applicant struggled at school both socially and academically and was described at school as being withdrawn and aggressive towards other children, which the Applicant attributes to pent-up anger towards his father.
7. Judge Chambers made reference to the dysfunctional relationship that the Applicant entered into at age 19 with a woman who was 12 years his senior and who introduced him to alcohol and illicit drugs including LSD and methamphetamines.
8. Judge Chambers noted that in October 2022 the Applicant's best friend died in a motor vehicle collision which had caused the Applicant considerable distress.
9. Judge Chambers noted that at the time of the carjacking offence the Applicant had no prior criminal history but had engaged in subsequent offending much of which had arisen in the context of family violence towards his former partner.
10. Judge Chambers noted that on 20 May 2020 the Applicant was sentenced to an 18-month community correction order for offences which included recklessly causing injury which involved assaulting his former partner causing her to lose a tooth. Judge Chambers noted that on 16 August 2021, he had been sentenced to 60 days imprisonment for assaulting and resisting a protective services officer leading him to be in breach of bail conditions.
11. Judge Chambers noted that the Applicant was assessed by a psychologist for the purposes of his County Court proceedings. This assessment was undertaken by Ms Gina Cidoni on 11 May 2023.
12. In her assessment of the Applicant Ms Cidoni noted that the Applicant had no history of diagnosed mental health conditions or treatments but that he had reported suicidal thoughts with a plan to overdose in May 2020. Ms Cidoni stated that the Applicant presented with symptoms similar to ADHD and a major depressive disorder and that the Applicant experienced intrusive memories with respect to the death of his close friend in a car accident, suggestive of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
13. Ms Cidoni noted that at the time she assessed the Applicant in May 2023 he admitted to the fact that he was still abusing methamphetamines including the day before her assessment. Ms Cidoni noted that use of the drug mimicked a number of mood related conditions including those seen in depression and psychosis. The Applicant stated that when he used methylamphetamines that he experienced hallucinations. Ms Cidoni concluded that the Applicant's illicit drug use was a major factor in his offending. Judge Chambers noted that Ms Cidoni concluded that the Applicant posed "a high risk of future offending and recommends ongoing drug treatment, combined with psychological treatment and counselling to assist in managing your emotions, in order to address that risk".
14. Judge Chambers noted that "beyond the remorse reflected in your guilty plea, there is no other evidence demonstrating remorse or regret for your conduct or insight into the impact of your offending on the victim".
15. Judge Chambers noted that courts recognise the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated. Judge Chambers noted that "this potential exists because young offenders are typically still in the stage of mental and emotional development and may be more open to influences designed to positively change their behaviour than adults who have established patterns of anti-social behaviour. No doubt because of this potential, it has been stated that the rehabilitation of young offenders, 'is one of the great objectives of the criminal law'.
16. Judge Chambers noted that courts when sentencing young offenders were cognisant of the impact and effect that a period of incarceration in an adult prison will have on the young offender and impair, rather than improve, the offender's prospects of successful rehabilitation. Judge Chambers noted that "I accept that your youth and immaturity operate to moderate your moral culpability for your conduct to a degree".
17. In sentencing the Applicant, Judge Chambers stated that she had regard to the fact that the Applicant had a difficult and disrupted early childhood and that he was exposed to parental alcohol abuse and trauma during periods in which he resided with his father. Judge Chambers noted that this type of environment marred a person's formative years, and that alcohol abuse and violence may be considered in the mitigation of sentence.
18. Judge Chambers noted that addressing amphetamine abuse would be critically important to the Applicant's rehabilitation. Judge Chambers was fortified by the fact that the Applicant's progress with a Community Corrections Order was positive in so far as he had completed 136 of 300 hours of community service and had also undertaken 10 sessions of complex drug counselling with a clinician. Judge Chambers noted the Applicant had obtained a number of certificates which would assist with future employment.
19. Judge Chambers noted that the Applicant derived support from his mother and two sisters who despite relocating to the United Kingdom in October 2022, had returned to Australia to support the Applicant during his sentencing in the County Court in May 2023.
20. Judge Chambers noted that despite Ms Cidoni's assessment of the Applicant posing a high risk of future offending that "I do not assess your future prospects as poor. I consider you have reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation. My improved assessment of your rehabilitation prospects arises from the extent of your compliance with the community correction order imposed in October 2021".
21. Judge Chambers noted that those prospects were highly dependent on the Applicant maintaining abstinence from illicit drug use.
22. Judge Chambers noted that the seriousness of the Applicant's offending, particularly the degree of violence involved meant that she had no option but to impose a full-time custodial sentence. In doing so she noted that the Applicant's term of imprisonment would be exacerbated by the fact that his entire family was now living in the United Kingdom which would make the term of imprisonment more isolating.
23. A total term of 3 years and 8 months imprisonment was imposed, and a period of 3 years had to be served before parole would be considered.

1. On 30 August 2024 the Applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa was 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 4 October 2024 the Applicant completed a Personal Particulars Form making representations to the Department in response to a notice of visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act. The Tribunal has duly considered this document located at page 67 of the joint tender bundle.
3. Having regard to his criminal history and the risk of reoffending the Applicant refers to the fact that he was 20 years old at the time of his offending and described himself as being impressionable, immature, lacking insight, judgement and self-control. The Applicant noted that when he was 19, he formed a relationship with a woman who is 12 years his senior and together they experienced homelessness and drug abuse.
4. The Applicant stated that he had completed a number of courses that he believed would assist him in avoiding further offending that included the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle course. The Applicant had also completed drug and alcohol counselling programs in prison and had undertaken a number of trade certificates which had been referenced above.
5. With respect to his risk of reoffending in the future the Applicant submitted that he believed the drugs and alcohol had caused his offending and that since he had been incarcerated he had taken significant steps to ensure that he doesn't relapse into drug use and criminality.
6. Having regard to his ties to Australia the Applicant advised that he had completed year 12 in a vocational college in Cranbourne Victoria. The Applicant stated that he had also completed 136 of 300 hours of community service order. The Applicant believed that if he was removed from Australia, it would cause hardship to his friends and the Applicant stated that in the past he has always been "quick to help elderly and handicapped people in the community".
7. The Applicant submitted that if he was returned to the United Kingdom, that it would be a struggle, as he has no family support networks in the United Kingdom and he believes he had no hope for a future life in the United Kingdom.
8. The Applicant outlined a range of other information that he wanted the primary decision-maker to consider with respect to his case. The Applicant stated that he saw Australia as a country of hope and opportunity. The Applicant stated that reflecting on his criminal history he believed that the crimes he committed were 'outrageous' and he hoped to be given an opportunity to turn his life around. The Applicant stated that he was extremely remorseful for his offending, for the impact on his victims, upon the courts, his family, and indeed the Australian people.
9. The Applicant stated that he believed that a lot of his anger stemmed from ill-treatment that he experienced at the hands of his father and that he had used drugs and alcohol as a mechanism for taking away his internal pain.
10. The Applicant referenced the courses that he had engaged in since he had been in prison and believed that these had assisted him in turning his life around. With respect to his drug history the Applicant stated that he was currently receiving a Bupe shot in prison which mitigated drug cravings and that he had no desire whatsoever to return to illicit drug use or alcohol use.
11. The Applicant acknowledged that drugs had contributed to his downfall and that in future he would not be reticent to seek counselling or treatment if he was struggling with any issues.
12. The Applicant hoped to be given a second chance to do the right thing and contribute to Australia through the skills that he had acquired by undertaking a number of certificate courses.
13. The Applicant stated that as his mother is ageing, and his younger sisters are growing into young women that he hopes to be able to be in Australia to support them and noted that one of his sisters suffered with leukaemia when she was younger and required chemotherapy to assist in her recovery.
14. The Applicant made reference to the comments of Judge Chambers who believed that his completion of 136 of 300 hours of unpaid community work was a positive sign of future rehabilitation.
15. The Applicant provided an additional submission dated 10 March 2025 located at page 107 of the joint tender bundle. This document has been duly considered by the Tribunal.
16. The Applicant stated that in making the submission he was in no way attempting to defend his previous behaviours, actions and offending. The Applicant stated that he fully takes account for his actions and was not proud with the way that he had conducted himself in the past.
17. The Applicant made reference to the brief of evidence provided to him in the Ringwood Court on 13 October 2021. The Applicant stated that when he was reading the brief he felt "sick, ashamed, embarrassed, upset, horrified and remorseful with myself and apologetic, empathy, sorry and regret for my victim, my ex-girlfriend Christine and her son".
18. The Applicant acknowledged the pain that he had caused the victims of his offending and that he was disgusted with himself and acknowledged that he had acted in a despicable way.
19. The Applicant stated that most of his offences occurred whilst he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The Applicant stated that he became a heavy user of methamphetamines when he was dating his former partner Ms R.
20. Once again the Applicant referenced his abusive childhood and the abuse that he experienced at the hands of his father both physical and emotional. The Applicant stated that he had never openly spoken about this abuse to anyone as he was too embarrassed and scared to raise it. The Applicant once again stated that he had used drugs and alcohol as a way of numbing his internal pain. The Applicant stated that this pain was exacerbated when he lost a friend in a car accident.
21. The Applicant stated that he has learnt that it is important to address his anger, his childhood issues, his substance abuse, his violence, and the triggers that caused him to offend in the past and to reflect on how his offending has affected other people.
22. The Applicant referenced the courses that he had engaged in with respect to self-improvement and with respect to his addiction issues. The Applicant stated that self-development courses had taught him to invest in himself and to be good, honest, hard-working and contribute to the Australian community. The Applicant characterised his past offending as not conforming with Australian expectations. The Applicant noted that his mother brought the family to Australia for a better lifestyle and had invested significantly in this process.
23. The Applicant stated that even outside prison he would not be afraid to seek counselling or therapy, or treatment if he felt the need for it. The Applicant noted that there had been no adverse incidents whilst in jail and that the monthly Bupe shot had been assisting with his drug rehabilitation.
24. The Applicant stated that since he had been imprisoned, he had been reading, doing puzzles, going to the library, exercising and cooking. The Applicant stated that courses he had engaged in had opened new doors for him.
25. The Applicant stated that he had previously worked as a receptionist in his mother's Chinese medicine business and had also worked for a number of labour hire agencies in Victoria in a range of occupations. The Applicant believed that with the qualifications that he had acquired to date that he would be able to find meaningful employment going forward.
26. The Applicant stated that he had an aspiration in the future to become a youth worker to assist Australian children who are struggling at school or getting into trouble with the law and providing coaching and guidance to them.
27. The Applicant stated that he believed that he was ready for a second chance to get his visa back and that he would not let the community down. The Applicant acknowledged that the person reading the submission did not know the Applicant as a person but wished to state that he was a good person who had made some awful and poor decisions, choices and actions but that was all in the past.
28. The Applicant stated that he wanted to conclude by reiterating his apology to all of those involved in or impacted by his offending and the grief that his actions had caused. The Applicant noted that he did not have the financial capacity to afford an immigration lawyer to assist in the cancellation process' but he wanted the reader of his submission "to know I have poured my absolute heart out in this letter and given it all some serious thought and honesty".
29. 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.
30. The delegate considered the respective submissions made by the Applicant as to why he believed there were reasons to revoke the cancellation of his visa.
31. On 5 June 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 Applicant was not represented in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and did not submit a statement to the Tribunal in support of his review application. However as referenced the Applicant did provide the Department with the Personal Particulars form dated 4 October 2024 and a handwritten statement to the Department dated 10 March 2025. These documents have been duly considered by the Tribunal for the purposes of this review and referenced above.

RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

1. The Respondent's representative provided a statement of facts issues and contentions (SFIC) to the Tribunal dated 21 July 2025 which has been duly considered.
2. The Respondent noted that the Applicant did not pass the character test on the basis of him having a substantial criminal record. The Respondent identified that the respective issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
3. Having regard to the first primary consideration, the protection of the Australian community, the submission notes that the Applicant's criminal history reveals offending that involves dishonesty and violence and includes family violence. The Applicant's history also indicates breaches of bail, and a community-based sentence imposed by the courts. The submission notes that on 6 June 2023 the Applicant was convicted in the Melbourne County Court on charges of aggravated carjacking, theft and obtain financial advantage by deception. The submission refers to the details of the offending which are captured in the Tribunal's summary of the Applicant's offending history above. The submission notes that Judge Chambers found the offending to be "undeniably serious".
4. The submission notes that the Applicant was sentenced to a period of 3 years and 8 months imprisonment for the above offences and that imprisonment is the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy indicative of the seriousness of the offending. The submission notes that the Applicant had amassed 20 convictions since 2020 and the cumulative effect of the Applicant's offending was a further indicator of its seriousness.
5. The Respondent submits that the risk of the Applicant engaging in further offending is both significant and unacceptable for a range of reasons. The Applicant did not present any evidence of remorse at his sentencing hearing before Judge Chambers in the County Court of Victoria. The Applicant did not enter a guilty plea until late in the proceedings. The Applicant was assessed by a psychologist at the time of his sentencing, Ms Gina Cidoni, as presenting a high risk of reoffending based on an assessment conducted on 11 May 2023. The Applicant had developed a substantial methamphetamine habit in the community. The Applicant had provided scant evidence of community support that he would receive if released into the community and noted that no family or friends had provided letters of support on his behalf.
6. The Minister contended that primary consideration 1 weighed very heavily against the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
7. Having regard to primary consideration 2, family violence committed by the non-citizen, the submission noted that the Applicant had been convicted of family violence against his former partner and her nine-year-old son who has special needs. The evidence indicated that on 20 May 2020 the Dandenong Magistrates Court issued a family violence intervention order upon the Applicant with respect to his former partner. The evidence indicated that on the 27 and 28 December 2020 the Applicant refused to leave the victim's apartment before assaulting her by pinning her to a couch and pinching and scratching her face and body during which time the victim lost one of her teeth which was knocked out during the assault. The victims 9-year-old son was present during the attack and attempted to restrain the Applicant before running to an adjoining apartment to seek assistance. The evidence indicates that the Applicant then fled the apartment with the victim's keys, iPhone, a Google speaker, her bank card and a Woolworths loyalty card. It was noted that the Applicant had expressed remorse for this offending but had not completed any family violence programs either before or during his current term of imprisonment. It was the Minister's contention that this consideration weighed heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
8. With regard to primary consideration 3 the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia the submission notes that the Applicant arrived in Australia when he was 15 years old, a period of some 11 years. The Applicant has spent the past two years in prison and the three years before that, accumulating 20 convictions. It was noted the Judge Chambers in her sentencing remarks indicated that the family of the Applicant namely his mother and two sisters relocated to live in the United Kingdom in October 2022.
9. It was the Minister's contention that this primary consideration carried at most limited weight in the Applicant's favour and did not outweigh countervailing primary considerations.
10. Having regard to primary consideration 4, best interests of minor children in Australia, the Applicant was relying on a relationship with his younger sister Luciana born on 3 August 2008. The submission notes however, that it was unclear whether Luciana still resided in Australia and hence the weight attached to this consideration is limited by the fact that the Applicant could maintain contact with his sister by electronic or other means. Further, there is an absence of evidence of the Applicant providing a positive parental role in Luciana's life. It was further noted that Luciana would turn 18 in 2026.
11. Having regard to primary consideration 5, expectations of the Australian community, the submission notes that the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not hold a visa on account of his serious criminal offending and the risk of him engaging in further offending and inflicting harm. The Minister's contention was that this primary consideration weighed heavily against revocation.
12. Having regard to 'other considerations' the Minister addressed the legal consequences of the decision. Namely that if the Applicant's visa remained cancelled that the removal obligation in section 198 of the Act will continue to apply to the Applicant and he will be detained under section 189 and 196 of the Act, unless he is granted a protection visa, or he is granted a visa under section 195A, or a residence determination is made under section 197AB. The Minister contended that this consideration weighed neutrally.
13. Having regard to the extent of impediments if removed, it was noted that the Applicant was 26 years old and has no physical or mental health conditions. The Applicant lived in the United Kingdom until he was 15 years of age and was unlikely to face any language or cultural barriers in that country. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, the Applicant would have access to social, medical and economic support available to all citizens. The Minister submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Applicant would be unable to re-establish himself in the United Kingdom and maintain basic living standards and that this consideration should be weighed neutrally.

1. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 21 August 2025 and the Applicant attended the hearing via video conferencing facilities. The Applicant was not represented.
2. The Minister was represented by Mr Jesse Slankard, solicitor, from Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
3. The Tribunal noted that the evidence filed and marked before it included the joint hearing book received and filed on 22 August 2025.
4. The Tribunal explained in detail the process of merits review, how the hearing would proceed and identified the respective issues in the review and the prospective outcomes of the review.
5. The Applicant confirmed the documents that he had received and considered with respect to the review, he confirmed he had received and considered the Respondent's statement of facts issues and contentions. The Tribunal also advised the Applicant that if there was any document referenced by the Respondent contained in the hearing bundle that the document could be displayed on the screen so the parties and Tribunal could all view the document.
6. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined.
7. The Applicant made an opening statement to the Tribunal. The Applicant stated that he had read the decision of the primary decision-maker. The Applicant had read the documentary evidence provided to him in advance of the hearing. The Applicant stated that his period of imprisonment had given him an opportunity to reflect on his past. The Applicant stated that since he had been in prison he had undertaken a number of rehabilitation courses both with respect to personal development and vocational development. The Applicant described his previous behaviour of using drugs and engaging in criminality is wrong and is having an impact on his family, the community and everyone else involved.
8. The Applicant stated that the courses that he had engaged in during his imprisonment had opened his eyes as to how his behaviour had changed. The Applicant stated that he was on monthly injections of Bupe with respect to his previous drug addiction. The Applicant stated that this had helped him get through his sentence. The Applicant stated that he was not taking drugs in prison. The Applicant stated that his mother and his younger sisters had relocated to the United Kingdom. The Applicant believed that his mother could offer him support when he is released into the community. The Applicant stated that going forward he wants to obtain employment, he wants to be there for his family and he wants to engage in healthy living.
9. The Minister's representative elected not to make an opening statement.
10. As the Applicant was unrepresented it was agreed that the Tribunal would take the Applicant through his evidence. The Applicant confirmed that he was born in the United Kingdom, and his recollection was that the family arrived in Australia in 2012, when he was around 13 years old. The Applicant stated that he completed primary school in the United Kingdom. He advised that his family settled in Melbourne, in the suburb of Glen Waverley. The Applicant advised that he went to several high schools. The first was in Springvale for two years, the second was in Noble Park for around one year, and the third was at Alkira High School, when the family moved to Cranbourne. The Applicant stated that he completed year 12 focussing on vocational studies.
11. The Applicant stated that he worked in a few different jobs. He obtained labouring work in a warehouse through a job agency, a position that he held for around 18 months. The Applicant stated that he met his ex-partner Ms R in 2018 and ceased work. The Applicant stated that Ms R introduced him to drugs such as methamphetamine and LSD and that he became a habitual drug user.
12. The Tribunal noted that the evidence indicated that the Applicant's father was abusive towards him both emotionally and physically and that the relationship between his parents broke down. The Applicant stated that his parents' relationship broke down in 2017 and that he and his sisters lived with their mother. The Applicant confirmed that there was a period where he moved back in with his father which did not work out well sometime between 2018 and 2019. The Applicant stated that he did not know where his father was now.
13. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about the whereabouts of his mother and sisters. He advised that they had relocated to the United Kingdom in around 2023 and had been living in the United Kingdom for the last few years. The Applicant stated that his mother was working in the United Kingdom but was not obtaining as much work as she did in Australia. The Applicant stated that one of his sisters was studying at university in the United Kingdom and that his younger sister was trying to apply to a university in Australia. The Tribunal asked the Applicant why his mother returned to United Kingdom. The Applicant advised that she returned to the United Kingdom to support her elderly father who had subsequently passed away in 2023.
14. The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether his mother was planning on residing in the United Kingdom going forward. The Applicant restated that his younger sister was looking for a university place in Australia, his older sister was continuing university studies in the United Kingdom. He advised his mother used to run a successful alternative medicine business in Victoria and that she had qualifications as a nurse and there was less work available to her in the United Kingdom. The Applicant advised that his mother had two brothers and three sisters all residing in the United Kingdom.
15. The Tribunal made reference to the Applicant's conviction history, which commenced on 20 May 2020. With respect to that offending, the Applicant stated that he was the subject of an apprehended violence order at the time in regard to Ms R and that he was found at her premises in breach of the order. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about his understanding of an apprehended violence order. The Applicant stated that it required a person not to have contact with the protected person, not to approach them and not to go near their home. The Tribunal asked the Applicant why he breached the order. The Applicant stated that he and his former partner were always fighting, that the police had issued the order, and that he had disregarded the order. The Tribunal asked the Applicant what he thought about apprehended violence orders. The Applicant stated that they should be taken seriously, that a person should stay away from the protected person, or they will get into trouble. The Tribunal asked the Applicant why he believed apprehended violence orders existed. The Applicant stated there was a lot of coverage in the press about women being killed in domestic violence situations, about violent relationships and that there was a need to protect the victims to stop these incidences from happening. The Tribunal noted that the convictions of 20 May 2020 referred to theft and asked the Applicant what his recollection of this was. The Applicant stated that he must have taken something belonging to his ex-partner, most likely while he was adversely affected by methamphetamines. The Tribunal asked about the wilfully damaging property component of the convictions. The Applicant stated that he broke a window at his ex-partner's house. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about the recklessly cause injury component of the conviction of 20 May 2020. The Applicant stated that he injured his ex-partner physically he could not remember the exact details. The Applicant recalled that there was a later domestic violence incident where he scratched his ex-partner, punched his ex-partner, knocking out a tooth, and that this led to a contravention of a condition of bail and a breach of the apprehended violence order.
16. The Tribunal noted that there is no tolerance within the Australian community or by the Australian government for family violence and asked the Applicant for his thoughts about this. The Applicant advised that family violence is wrong, that his ex-partner was a woman, that her son should not have been subject to his mother being beaten up, that he would hate for somebody to do that to his mother or his sisters. The Applicant conceded that he should not have been at his ex-partners residence in the first place and if he had of complied with the apprehended violence order she would have not been injured by violence. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner should not feel unsafe in her own home and that he injured her.
17. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent would no doubt be asking questions with respect to the balance of the Applicant's offending history.
18. The Tribunal asked the Applicant about his drug history. The Applicant stated that drugs had not been available to him in prison and were available in the community. The Applicant stated that since his incarceration he had engaged in drug rehabilitation programs and had also engaged in the Secada program prior to his imprisonment. The Applicant stated that if he is released into the community, he will attempt to get access to a monthly Bupe shot, and that he will attempt to engage in drug rehabilitation counselling.
19. The Tribunal asked the Applicant what impact his father's violence and abuse towards him had. The Applicant stated that he had no one to talk to about this abuse. Consequently, anger was building inside him over the years. The Applicant stated that he thought that anger was the way to deal with problems. The Applicant stated that you need to take your anger out in a good way, and that you need to refocus and engage in things such as calming exercises.
20. The Tribunal asked the Applicant to outline how he had addressed his drug abuse history. The Applicant reiterated that he had been on monthly Bupe shots in prison. The Applicant stated that his drug history had led to his offending, and subsequent criminal history. The Applicant stated that drug use pushed him away from his family and ruined his life. The Applicant stated that drugs were not the way to go about things and he acknowledged that if he continued to use illicit drugs that he would keep going back into prison.
21. The Tribunal noted that Direction 110 states that protection of the Australian community and the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government. That a decision-maker is required to look at a person's history of offending and the risk of further offending in the community. The Tribunal asked the Applicant what he believes has mitigated his risk of future offending.
22. The Applicant stated that he is now aware of the consequences of the decisions that he makes. He is aware of how his actions affect others around him. He acknowledged that his mother brought the family to Australia for a better lifestyle and a better way of living. The Applicant stated during the past couple of years whilst imprisoned that he had undertaken a lot of reflecting. The Applicant stated he had undertaken courses that had helped change his life and helped him to make better decisions. The Applicant stated that he knows that he must think before he acts. He stated that he understood the hurt that he had caused his victims and his ex-girlfriend. He stated that he let drugs take over his life, and that he cannot blame anyone for the decisions that he has made, and that he has to be responsible for who he is, and what he does.
23. The Tribunal asked the Applicant who would provide support to him if he was released into the community given that he was estranged from his father and given the fact that his mother and sisters now resided in the United Kingdom. The Applicant stated that prior to being released from prison if he is paroled, that prison authorities will help him with reintegration into the community. The Applicant stated that he had also completed the positive lifestyles course which required the completion of seven modules.
24. Once again, the Tribunal asked the Applicant whether there was anybody that could support him in the community upon his release from prison. The Applicant stated that he could call his mother in the United Kingdom by video link. The Applicant stated that his mother had friends in Melbourne and that he had friends who do not use drugs.
25. The Respondent's representative cross examined the Applicant. The Respondent took the Applicant to the joint tender bundle at page 117, a copy of the Applicant's movement records. It was noted that the Applicant first arrived in Australia on 31 May 2010 and left Australia on 4 June 2010. The Applicant stated that the family visited Australia at that time. The Respondent noted that the Applicant's second arrival was on 1 December 2014 and asked the Applicant whether this was the time that the Applicant's family had migrated to Australia. The Applicant confirmed it was. The Respondent noted that the Applicant would have been 15 at the time which suggested that he would have attended some high school studies in the United Kingdom. The Applicant confirmed that he did.
26. The Respondent asked the Applicant whether he got to know family members whilst living in the United Kingdom. The Applicant stated that he knew his paternal grandmother but did not get to know his maternal uncles. The Respondent asked the Applicant how many family members he had in the United Kingdom and the Applicant stated that he was not sure. The Applicant stated that he was unclear about the composition of family on his father's side but on his mother's side she had a sister in Dubai, two sisters in the United Kingdom and two brothers in the United Kingdom.
27. The Respondent took the Applicant to page 41 of the joint tender bundle, this document referred to the sentencing comments of Judge Chambers. The Applicant stated that he was familiar with this document. The Applicant was taken to page 43 of the document. The sentencing comments indicated that the carjacking offence for which the Applicant was convicted occurred on Sunday 26 January 2020 and this offending happened before the Applicant's engagement in family violence. The Applicant confirmed this. The Applicant was asked whether he knew the victim. The Applicant stated that he knew the victim through school and that he contacted the victim to advise that he was interested in purchasing the victims motor vehicle. It was noted that the Applicant had also contacted the co-offender to meet the victim, and the Applicant confirmed this. The Applicant confirmed that he told the co-offender to buy gloves and the balaclava and confirmed that he told the co-offender "no face, no case".
28. The Applicant was taken to paragraph 8 of the sentencing comments which indicated that on "Sunday, 26 January 2020, you met with Mr Constable in the car park of the Cranbourne Railway Station and discussed what was going to take place with Mr Susan. Mr Constable showed you a steak knife he had brought with him. After this, you stood on the nature strip while Mr Constable hid behind some bushes on the opposite side of the road. He then called Mr Susan and directed him to meet you at the Cranbourne Railway Station".
29. The Applicant confirmed the facts in paragraph 8 and noted that his co-offender showed him a steak knife that he had brought with him and that the co-offender hid in the bushes while the Applicant waited for the victim to arrive. It was noted that the co-offender demanded the victim's phone and wallet, threatened the victim, and asked him whether he wanted to die, the Applicant confirmed this. It was noted that the Applicant then demanded the victim's phone pin and wallet, and the Applicant confirmed this and confirmed that the victim provided his phone pin.
30. The Respondent made reference to page 44 of the joint tender bundle at paragraph 14 which noted that "after stealing the victim's vehicle, you drove to a liquor store in Cranbourne and used the victim's bankcard to purchase several cans of Woodstock bourbon over two transactions for $40.98 and $59.97 respectively". The Applicant confirmed this chain of events. The Applicant also accepted that at the time of his arrest he told police that he knew that the co-offender had a steak knife. The Applicant confirmed that after he was interviewed by police he was held in custody for 41 days. The Applicant confirmed that he initially pleaded not guilty.
31. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was released on bail in March 2020 and that whilst on bail he committed family violence offences against his former partner, the Applicant confirmed this.
32. The Respondent referred to page 223 of the joint tender bundle which was a psychological assessment undertaken by Forensic Intervention Services in Victoria by Mr Clarence Dominguez dated 30 September 2024. Page 225 of this report made reference to the Applicant's family violence offending. The report noted that the offending that led to the Applicant's first community corrections order occurred on 24 April 2020 and was perpetrated against his former partner. The report notes that "on that day, they began arguing with the victim demanding that he leave the property. Mr Brown placed his hands over the victim's mouth to stop her from raising her voice. A scuffle ensued, where he slapped the victim and told her to stop screaming. He placed his fingers in her mouth and pushed her tongue, causing bleeding from the pressure. The altercation was disrupted when a neighbour overheard the incident. He bumped a window causing it to break as he left. The victim urinated herself during the incident due to her fear. Police attended later in May, and he attempted to flee. There was no information regarding the police interview".
33. The Respondent noted that the report at page 225 referred to another family violence incident on 27 December 2020 noting "Mr Brown's ex-partner realised her cat was missing (the same victim as in the above offence) and sent him a text message asking whether he had taken it. Shortly after, Mr Brown responded, informing her that he was at her apartment. The victim allowed him to enter the property, as she believed he was going to reveal the whereabouts of her cat. Mr Brown informed the victim that he would retrieve the cat, but would wait 20 minutes before doing so, to ensure that the victim had not called the police. Mr Brown was holding the cat food that he had previously taken from the victim's home, and also stated that she needed to go with him to retrieve the cat. The victim and her son walked with Mr Brown to a nearby car park; however, the cat was not there. Mr Brown followed the victim and her son back to her apartment. Upon arrival, the victim took her son into the bedroom, where they sat against the door in an attempt to prevent Mr Brown from entering. Mr Brown waited in the lounge room area of the premises. Eventually, the victim entered the lounge room and requested that he leave. Mr Brown refused, causing the victim's son to phone the victims 24-year-old daughter for assistance. Mr Brown proceeded to grab the victim and pin her to the couch, pinching her arms and scratching her face and body. During the assault, Mr Brown knocked out one of the victim's bottom teeth, and also caused bruising to her legs and torso. Mr Brown stole the victim's phone so that she could not call the police. The victim's son jumped onto Mr Brown's back, and sprayed wipe cleaner into his eyes. Mr Brown continued to assault the victim, so her son went to get their neighbour to help. When the neighbour arrived, Mr Brown fled the premises, taking the victim's keys, speaker, and phone. When interviewed by the police, Mr Brown provided a "no comment" interview; however, acknowledged that he had broken the family violence intervention order".
34. The Applicant stated that he agreed with the facts as stated in the report pertaining to the incident of 24 April 2020. The Applicant confirmed that he was on bail at the time of this offending. The Applicant confirmed that after the incident of 24 April 2020 he was placed on a family violence intervention order which led to the conviction of 20 May 2020 at which time the Applicant was subject to a community corrections order for 20 months. The Applicant agreed with this.
35. The Applicant also agreed with the report at page 225 of the joint tender bundle pertaining to the offending of 27 December 2020 relating to his ex-partner's cat. The Applicant stated that he was aware of the fact that his ex-partner's son had a disability which he believed was attention deficit disorder. The Applicant conceded that at the time of the offending on 27 December 2020, he was the subject of an apprehended violence order and he was also the subject of a community corrections order that was imposed on 20 March 2020. In addition to this the Applicant conceded that at the time of these offences he was also on bail with respect to the aggravated carjacking offence.
36. The Respondent made reference to page 39 of the joint tender bundle which referenced the Applicant's criminal history check report which was run on 10 December 2024. Reference was made to convictions in the Dandenong Magistrates Court dated 16 August 2021 at which time the Applicant was convicted of assault a protective services officer, resist a protective services officer and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. It was noted that the Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 60 days imprisonment for this offending. The Respondent asked the Applicant what he could tell the Tribunal about the details of this offending. The Applicant stated that he had signed in at the police station and that he was drunk and had also consumed some weed before attending the police station. The Applicant stated that when police threatened to detain him that he panicked. The Applicant stated that the assault against protection officers was at a train station and that he has a vague recollection of the assault because he was drunk at the time and that there were two protection officers involved. The Applicant claims that he was approached at the station for identity and that the altercation started from there. The Applicant stated that the protective officers indicated there was a warrant for his arrest and that he resisted the officers and assaulted the officers and was arrested straightaway. The Applicant was asked whether the protection officers were injured, and the Applicant claimed that he believed one was injured by bruising to the head. The Applicant conceded the bruising occurred when he had punched the protective officer.
37. The Respondent took the Applicant to page 48 of the hearing book (the County Court Sentencing Comments of 6 June 2023 located at pages 40-57 of the joint tender bundle) which indicated that the Applicant had been assessed for the purposes of his County Court sentencing by a psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni, on 11 May 2023. The Applicant stated that he recalled this assessment.
38. The Respondent referred the Applicant to page 49, paragraph 50 of the joint tender bundle which indicated that Ms Cidoni, in her report, noted that the Applicant had undergone drug treatment in April 2022 with Secada. It further noted that on the day the Applicant was assessed by Ms Cidoni on 11 May 2023, the Applicant "disclosed that whilst you had reduced your amphetamine use, you continue to use approximately two points of methamphetamine a day, including on the day prior to the assessment. He reported that when you use methamphetamine you experience hallucinations".
39. The Applicant confirmed that he had attended drug counselling with Secada in April 2022 which involved one-on-one weekly counselling. The Applicant also stated that when he was assessed by Ms Cidoni that she had asked him about his drug use along with his contact with family members.
40. The Respondent asked the Applicant how long he had engaged in the Secada and he advised for around a year, right up until before his County Court sentencing in June 2023. The Applicant confirmed that the drug treatment with Secada formed part of his Community Corrections Order. The Applicant also confirmed that he told Ms Cidoni that he had reduced his methamphetamine use, but that at the time of her assessment in May 2023, he was still using methamphetamines. The Applicant also confirmed that he told Ms Cidoni that he had used methamphetamine the day before her assessment.
41. The Respondent made reference to page 50 of the joint tender bundle at paragraph 52 in which Judge Chambers summarised the conclusions made by Ms Cidoni of the Applicant in her report "that your illicit drug use was the major factor in your offending, combined with your youth. Overall, Ms Cidoni assesses you as an impressionable and immature young man. Having assessed your risk of future violent offending utilising the VRAG assessment tool, Ms Cidoni considers you pose a high risk of future offending, and recommends ongoing drug treatment, combined with psychological treatment and counselling to assist in managing your emotions, in order to assess that risk". The Respondent asked the Applicant whether he agreed with Ms Cidoni's findings. The Applicant stated that he agreed with them at the time.
42. The Respondent asked the Applicant whether aside from the Secada treatment program and counselling in 2022-2023 he had engaged in any other drug rehabilitation. The Applicant stated that he had previously spoken to a counsellor with respect to his drug use. The Applicant stated this was around the same time that he was engaged with Secada. The Applicant stated that the counselling focused on management of drug use. The Applicant also confirmed that prior to his sentencing in the County Court in 2022 he engaged in a program to address family violence issues and how to address anger.
43. The Respondent asked the Applicant about his relationship with his family. He advised that during the time that he was in a relationship with Ms R and up until the time of his sentencing in June 2023 that he was not close with his family, that he was using drugs every day, that he was ignoring his mother's phone calls and text messages and that he had no contact with his sisters over that time.
44. The Respondent asked about levels of contact since sentencing in 2023. The Applicant stated that he has resumed contact with his mother and with his sisters, but is estranged from his father.
45. The Respondent took the Applicant to page 196 of the joint tender bundle once again referencing the report prepared by Mr Clarence Dominguez dated 30 January 2025. The report was based on the Applicant engaging in the Moderate Intensity Violence Intervention program over 33 sessions. It was noted that this program commenced on 1 October 2024 and was completed on 13 December 2024. The Applicant confirmed that he attended all sessions. Reference was made to page 197 of the report which indicated that during the program "Mr Brown related similar accounts of his index offence. However, Mr Brown shed more details of his offending, which may have been attempts to justify, minimise and deflect aspects of his offending. For instance, Mr Brown justified that his co-offender told him that the victim had a conflict with his co-offender, which Mr Brown stated made him decide to agree to take revenge against the victim. Mr Brown also deflected blame to his co-offender when he stated that his co-offender bribed him with methamphetamines and that his co-offender brought the knife without his knowledge". The Applicant was invited to comment on these findings. The Applicant stated that his co-offender did not bring the knife without his knowledge. The Applicant confirmed that his co-offender demanded that he take the victim's card and phone but denied that the co-offender bribed him with methamphetamines.
46. The Applicant was taken to page 205 of the joint tender bundle, the report of Mr Dominguez dated 30 January 2025 which indicated that "Mr Brown's score on the VRS placed him in the moderate risk category of risk for violence relative to other service users. This is consistent with the author's opinion based on review of the available information on Mr Brown's responses in the intervention". The Applicant was invited to comment on these findings and disagreed with them. The Applicant stated that he deals with anger in a better way and that he has let go of his anger, not hold onto it and does not take it out on other people.
47. The Applicant was taken to page 207 of the joint tender bundle which were the findings of Mr Dominguez with respect to spousal violence which indicates that "the author's opinion is that he currently poses a high risk of spousal violence. This means that Mr Brown is in a category that poses a considerably higher risk than the average person who violently offends and will require a high level of supervision and resources to address this risk of spousal violence".
48. The Applicant was invited to comment on these findings and advised that he did not agree with this assessment. The Applicant agreed that he did require supervision in the form of a professional providing different strategies, different ways of going about relationships without getting angry and thinking about other people's feelings. The Applicant was asked whether he had any other support in this respect apart from counselling and he advised that he did not.
49. The Respondent took the Applicant to page 63 of the joint tender bundle. This was a police preliminary brief of evidence pertaining to the Applicant's family violence offending. The Respondent's representative referred to information in the brief which stated, "the victim and her nine-year-old son, (who has special needs) were moved to crisis accommodation in Bayswater where they currently reside".
50. The Applicant was asked whether he knew that his ex-partner and son were moved to crisis accommodation and he advised that he was aware of this after the December 2020 offending.
51. The Applicant was asked further questions by the Respondent with respect to his family. He advised that he has two sisters, his elder sister Gabriella is 18 years old and is studying at university in the United Kingdom, however, the Applicant was not sure of what course she was pursuing. He noted that she had been studying for about a year but did not know the name of the University.
52. The Applicant was asked whether Gabriella was going to complete her studies at the end of 2025 and the Applicant confirmed that she was. The Applicant stated that his younger sister Luciana was 17 years old and currently at school. The Applicant was asked to describe his relationship with his sisters between 2020 and 2023. The Applicant stated that they were not close in 2020 but started talking again from around 2021 or 2022 onwards. The Applicant advised that he had not spoken to his sisters whilst he had been in custody.
53. The Applicant confirmed that he had completed a number of vocational and therapeutic courses whilst in prison. The Applicant stated that he had completed studies in horticulture whilst in prison and had worked in the nursery in prison and hoped to work in the horticultural industry when he is released into the community.
54. The Applicant advised that he had been connecting to his Islamic religion and that he wants to attend the Mosque on a regular basis when he is released into the community and wants to pursue further studies in horticulture. The Applicant advised that he had helped his mother with a website in the past. The Applicant advised that he wanted to continue to see a counsellor and hoped to be able to stay on a regular monthly Bupe shot.
55. The Applicant was asked whether he believed his skills acquired in Australia would be transferable to the United Kingdom and he advised that he was not sure.
56. The Applicant was asked about his mother's view with respect to his current predicament. The Applicant stated that his mother was focusing on his sisters, that she does not have as much work in the United Kingdom as she did in Australia and that she is looking after her mother.
57. The Applicant was given an opportunity during an adjournment to consider collating his closing comments.
58. Upon resumption of the hearing, the Applicant advised that he had engaged in a lot of reflecting. The Applicant stated that he was not proud of his actions and how his actions have hurt vulnerable people. The Applicant has reflected on how his actions have affected his victims and he is sorry for that. The Applicant stated that he was sorry for not getting help that he needed sooner. The Applicant stated that he was sorry for all of his offending and that he felt bad for his criminal offending. The Applicant stated that his criminal history did not reflect who he truly was as a person. The Applicant stated that he promised to be a better person in the future and to take on board the help around him. The Applicant stated that he was done with his previous lifestyle and using drugs every day and that he wants to use the certificates and qualifications that he has gained in prison to move forward.
59. Mr Slankard made closing submissions on behalf of the Minister. The Respondent's representative noted that the Minister continues to rely on its statement of facts issues and contentions and submitted that the evidence indicates that the Applicant fails the character test, and hence the issue in the review is whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa having regard to Direction 110.
60. With respect to primary consideration 1 it was the Minister's position that this weighed very heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The submission referred to the Applicant's frequent dishonesty offending, the perpetration of violence against women, breaches of bail conditions and breaches of community corrections orders. It was submitted that the Applicant's aggravated carjacking offence was a most serious offence and that Judge Chambers in her sentencing comments made reference to the impact upon the victim of the threats and violence towards him.
61. The submission noted that with regard to paragraph 8.1.1 of the direction that the crimes that the Applicant had engaged in, were crimes of a violent nature. Further having regard paragraph 8.1.1(b)(ii), that the Applicant had assaulted a government representative namely a protective officer in the course of their duty, which was also conduct considered to be serious.
62. The submission noted that with respect to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) that the Applicant had committed acts of family violence which are viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community.
63. The submission noted that with respect to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) that the Applicant had served two sentences of imprisonment for the crimes that he had committed during the course of his offending history.
64. The submission noted that with respect to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) having regard to the frequency of the Applicant's offending and whether there was any trend of increasing frequency, that the evidence indicated that the Applicant had been the subject of 20 convictions since 2020 which were indicative of increasing seriousness.
65. The submission noted that the cumulative effect of the Applicants repeat offending was evident having regard to paragraph 8.1.1 (1)(f).
66. The Minister's representative addressed the risk of harm to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, noting that there was a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to the Australian community in the event that the Applicant committed further offences or engage in other serious conduct. Reference was made to the assessment of the Applicant by Mr Carlos Dominguez dated 30 January 2025 at page 196 of the hearing book that indicated that the Applicant presented a moderate risk of re-offending despite completing all modules of the moderate intensity violence intervention program. Mr Dominguez further found that the Applicant had a high risk with respect to spousal violence and opined that the Applicant required high resources to mitigate this risk. Further to this Ms Gina Cidoni, a psychologist, opined in her report for County Court sentencing, that the Applicant presented as a moderate risk of reoffending.
67. The Minister's representative noted that there was minimal family support in Australia available to the Applicant due to the fact that the Applicant was estranged from his father and due to the fact that his mother and sisters had relocated to the United Kingdom with no framework for their return. The Minister's representative noted that the Applicant had expressed vague intentions to continue with counselling in the community. It was noted that the Applicant had remained drug-free in custody, but this had not been tested in the community and the Applicant was using methamphetamines right up to the time of his sentencing by the County Court of Victoria.
68. Overall, the Minister's representative submitted that there was a risk to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct and that the information from Mr Dominguez and Ms Cidoni supported this assertion. Further that there was limited evidence of rehabilitation achieved and no opportunity to observe post imprisonment how the Applicant will fare in the wider community.
69. Having regard to family violence committed by the Applicant, the Minister's representative noted that the Applicant had engaged in two sets of family violence at two points in time. The first on 20 May 2020 at which time the Applicant was the subject of a community corrections order and was placed under an apprehended violence order. As a consequence of this offending the Applicant's ex-partner and her dependent son had to be moved into crisis accommodation. The Applicant offended against his ex-partner again in December 2020 with the evidence indicating a serious offence involving violence. Once again this offending occurred despite the existence of an apprehended violence order. The Minister's representative noted that the Applicant's family violence offending was characterised by violence resulting in physical injury along with manipulative behaviour. It was acknowledged that the Applicant had taken some remedial steps to address his violence. The Minister's representative noted that the Applicant had been assessed by Mr Dominguez as posing a high level risk for family violence going forward. Having regard to paragraph 8.3(3)(a),(b) and (c) it was submitted that there had been a frequency in the Applicant's family violence conduct and a trend of increasing seriousness in that conduct. That there had been a substantial cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence, and there was limited evidence of rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the last act of family violence despite engagement in the moderate intensity violence intervention program, with the convener of the program determining that the Applicant posed a high risk of spousal violence.
70. The Minister's representative submitted that this consideration weighed very heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
71. Having regard to the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia the Minister's representative noted that the Applicant's immediate family is not in Australia and relocated to the United Kingdom in 2023. It was acknowledged that the Applicant is estranged from his father and was unclear as to his whereabouts. There was a prospective chance that the Applicant's family may relocate back to Australia in March 2026 but this timetable was unclear and not corroborated by any evidence. The Minister's representative acknowledged that the Applicant came to Australia on 1 December 2014 at age 15 and that some weight should be given to this consideration. It was noted that the Applicant's offending commenced in 2020, until around June 2023 and that there was no evidence of support beyond the Applicant's immediate family members who as noted were in the United Kingdom. The Minister's representative submitted that slight weight should be given to this consideration with respect to revocation of the cancellation.
72. Having regard to the best interests of minor children, the Minister's representative acknowledged that the Applicant had a sister Luciana who was aged 17 that was not residing in Australia and was currently residing in the United Kingdom. It was noted that the relationship that the Applicant has with Luciana is non parental and that there had been limited contact between the Applicant and Luciana since 2020. It was noted that Luciana will turn 18 in August 2026 and it was further noted that Luciana and the Applicant had been separated for an extended period since the Applicant's mother and two sisters relocated to the United Kingdom.
73. With respect to expectations of the Australian community, the Minister's representative noted that the expectations of the Australian community were such that the Applicant should not hold of visa.
74. Having regard to the other consequences, the Minister's representative noted that with respect to the legal consequences of the decision that the Applicant was subject to removal, subject to immigration detention until his removal, had limited grounds for applying for any visa apart from a protection visa and that this consideration weighed neutrally.
75. Having regard to the extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia the Minister's representative noted that the Applicant was 26 years old, that he had no health conditions, that he had lived the first 15 years of his life in the United Kingdom, that there was no language or cultural barriers that the Applicant would experience in the United Kingdom. Further, that the Applicant would have access to medical and social support in the United Kingdom and that he has immediate and extended family resident in the United Kingdom. This consideration in the view of the Minister's representative carried neutral weight.
76. The Minister's representative submitted that overall, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa.

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 is captured in his Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check in the joint tender bundle at pages 38 and 39.
4. The Applicant's criminal history which has been discussed extensively in these reasons is indicative of a number of violent crimes and crimes of family violence.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates the Applicant's index offending which led to him being subject to a term of imprisonment in 2023 related to an incident that occurred in January 2020. The index offending related to aggravated carjacking, theft and obtaining a financial advantage by deception which was described by the sentencing judge, Judge Chambers in the County Court of Victoria as being very serious offending, accompanied by a level of pre-planning and offending that created a terrifying ordeal for the victim.
6. As described, that offending indicated that on Saturday, 25 January 2020 the Applicant contacted the victim of this offending Mr Aaron Susan, via Facebook, advising him that he was interested in purchasing a car that Mr Susan was looking to sell. The Applicant had also been in contact with his co-offender, Mr Constable, with respect to this offending. The evidence indicates that on 26 January 2020, the Applicant met with Mr Constable in the car park of the Cranbourne Railway Station and discussed what was going to take place with Mr Susan. At this meeting, Mr Constable produced a steak knife that he had brought along to the meeting with him. Mr Constable was going to hide behind some bushes on the opposite side of the road and when the Applicant called Mr Susan the co-offender was going to pounce. The evidence indicates that Mr Susan drove to the Cranbourne Railway Station and drove into the car park and met the Applicant. The Applicant asked Mr Susan if he could put his satchel bag in the boot of Mr Susan's car. Mr Susan agreed to do this and opened the boot and got out of the car to assist the Applicant, leaving the keys in the ignition, with the car running. As Mr Susan was returning to the driver side door he heard footsteps approaching him from behind the bushes at which time Mr Constable dressed in black with the hood of his jumper pulled over his head, a mask covering his entire face and brandishing a steak knife, held the knife at Mr Constable demanding that he hand over his possessions including the keys to his car, his wallet and his phone. Judge Chambers describes the victim as being terrified by these actions with a real fear that he was going to be stabbed.
7. The evidence indicates that Mr Susan handed over his wallet and the pin for his phone and that the Applicant then stole the victims motor-vehicle and departed with the stolen motor vehicle with Mr Constable in the passenger seat. After stealing Mr Susan's motor-vehicle Mr Constable and the Applicant drove to a liquor store and purchased alcohol using Mr Susan's bank card for this purpose.
8. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was charged with the offending behaviour and remanded in custody on 26 January 2020 and held in custody for 41 days before being granted bail by the Magistrates Court in Victoria in March 2020. Whilst in the community the Applicant was subject to strict bail conditions.
9. The evidence indicates that Mr Constable was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment for the charge of aggravated carjacking and two-months imprisonment for the charge of theft on 21 July 2020, with a non-parole period of nine months. The evidence indicates that Mr Constable entered an early plea to the charges and agreed to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution against the Applicant.
10. The evidence indicates that a contested committal proceeding occurred in the Magistrates Court in Victoria on 11 February 2021 at which time the Applicant was again remanded in custody and spend a further 40 days in custody prior to being granted bail on 22 March 2020. The evidence indicates that on 28 February 2023 the Applicant entered a guilty plea to the charges for which he was sentenced, and the plea hearing was adjourned to 29 May 2023 to allow psychological material to be obtained to assist the Applicant and the Court with respect to his guilty plea.
11. As has been noted by Judge Chambers the Applicants offending, whilst not sophisticated, was planned and indeed instigated by the Applicant. Judge Chambers noted that the fact that Mr Constable was disguised, with his face covered whilst brandishing a knife would have presented as a terrifying figure to the victim. Judge Chambers refers to a victim impact statement in which Mr Susan stated that he feared for his life during the event and that he continues to feel unsafe in the community as a consequence of the offending.
12. The evidence further indicates that the Applicant was convicted in the Dandenong Magistrates Court on 20 May 2020 of a number of offences including theft, wilfully damage property, recklessly cause injury, contravene the conduct condition of bail, and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. This offending related to the Applicant engaging in family violence against his ex-partner. It occurred whilst the Applicant was on strict bail conditions with respect to the carjacking offence.
13. The evidence indicates that whilst on bail that the Applicant assaulted a protective services officer in the course of that person's duty in the community for which he was sentenced in the Dandenong Magistrates Court on 16 August 2021 to a 60 day period of imprisonment.
14. The evidence indicates that in December 2020 the Applicant engaged in further family violence offending against his ex-partner contravening a family violence intervention order and leading to him being convicted in the Ringwood Magistrates Court on 13 October 2021 with recklessly cause injury, theft, contravention of the family violence intervention order, instil harm and fear in the victim, the commission of and contravene a conduct condition of bail. As a consequence, the Applicant was convicted to a Community Correction Order for 24 months with a requirement that he engage in unpaid community work of 300 hours.
15. The evidence indicates that the Applicant did engage in crimes of a violent nature against Mr Susan and in the two-family violence incidents perpetrated against his ex-partner. That family violence offending resulted in physical and psychological harm to the Applicant's ex-partner, which included amongst other things the loss of a tooth, scratching and bruising. The offending in December of 2020 occurred in front of the victim's minor child and was of such gravity that it resulted in the victim and her son being removed to a safe house.
16. When the factors in Direction 110, 8.1.1(1)(a) are applied to the Applicant's criminal history involving crimes of violence and crimes of family violence, the Tribunal finds that these crimes are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian Community.
17. 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.
18. There is no evidence that the Applicant has caused a person to enter into or to be a party to a forced marriage.
19. There is, however, evidence that the Applicant has committed crimes against government representatives or officials due to the positions that they hold when he assaulted a protective services officer in the line of duty, offending which was so serious in nature that it led to the Applicant being imprisoned for a period of 60 days.
20. With respect to 8.1.1((d) the sentencing comments of Judge Chambers in the County Court of Victoria clearly captures the impact that the Applicant's carjacking offence had on the victim Mr Susan, with lingering effects years after the offending took place. There is also evidence that the family violence offending perpetrated by the Applicant against his former partner leading to substantial physical injury such as the loss of a tooth and bleeding would have had a profound impact on the victim and in the second incident of family violence, her son. The fear was palpably recorded by the fact that the victim and her son sat against a bedroom door in an attempt to prevent the Applicant from entering. The evidence further indicates that the Applicant's ex-partner and her son were removed to a safe refuge due to their fear of the Applicant.
21. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(e) the evidence is indicative of the frequency of the Applicant's offending that commenced in January 2020, and continued up until he was sentenced in the Country Court in June 2023. This frequency is captured in the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check.
22. 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.
23. The Applicant's history in prison has been uneventful.
24. 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. The Applicant's offending has involved breach of bail offences, the breach of a community corrections order and his offending history has led to 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.
25. 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.
26. With respect to 8.1.1(1)(h) there is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates that the Applicant was formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status.
27. Having regard to 8.1.1(i) there is no evidence that the Applicant has committed an offence, or other serious conduct, in another country.
28. Having regard to the Applicant's history of violent offending between 2020 and 2023 the Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the offending weighs heavily against revocation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Fiver Year Resident Return 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.
29. 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 has claimed in his written statements and in his oral evidence to the Tribunal at the review hearing that he is sorry for his offending.
3. The Applicant has commenced buprenorphine (Bupe) injections on a monthly basis whilst in prison which he claims are helping with his previous drug addiction and he is hoping that this will continue when he is released into the community.
4. The Applicant advised that if he his released into the community he hopes to see a counsellor, he hopes to obtain work in the horticultural sector and continue horticultural studies.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has no family support networks in the Australian community in the event that he was released back into it. The evidence indicates that his mother and two sisters relocated to the United Kingdom in 2023 and there is no conclusive evidence before the Tribunal about any plan for them to return to Australia in the future. The evidence indicates that the Applicant is estranged from his father and that the relationship that previously existed between the Applicant and his father was both toxic and destructive. The evidence indicates that the Applicants relationship with his father has had a substantial adverse impact upon him.
6. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates the Applicant had a long-term drug addiction in the community. The evidence indicates that the Applicant made no attempts whilst living in the community to address his addiction. Indeed, the evidence indicates that in May 2023 the months prior to the Applicant being sentenced for his index offending in the County Court of Victoria, admitted to Ms Cidoni (psychologist) that he was still using methamphetamine at that point in time. The evidence indicates that the Applicant had a deep-seated and long-term addiction predominantly to methamphetamines and that he also abused alcohol, LSD and cannabis. Apart from evidence of abstinence from drug use in prison assisted by the administration of buprenorphine injections, there is no evidence of an extended period of abstinence in the community and it is difficult to predict how the Applicant will fare with the stressors of being re-released into the community after a term of imprisonment. This is compounded by the fact that there are limited protective factors in place in terms of a family network or close friendship network able to provide support to the Applicant in the community.
7. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that when the Applicant was assessed by Ms Cidoni that she assessed his risk of engaging in further offending as moderate.
8. Mr Dominguez in his assessment of the Applicant in January 2025 also concluded that the risk of the Applicant engaging in further offending was moderate, and further concluded that his risk of engaging in future family violence offending was high. Indeed, Mr Dominguez opined that the only way of circumventing this risk was the implementation of substantial support networks and counselling.
9. The Applicant's rehabilitation has not been properly tested in the community.
10. The history of offending to date in the absence of a support network or other protective factors leads the Tribunal to question the Applicant's ability to be of good behaviour going forward.
11. 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.
12. 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. That history indicates violent crimes and family violence crimes, a willingness to breach bail conditions and to breach community corrections orders. This is in disregard for the Australian criminal justice system. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has struggled with significant addiction and accepts that the Applicants drug addiction has at times fuelled his criminal offending. However, there is no evidence of a long period of abstinence from drug use by the Applicant when he was living in the community and as discussed, there is no evidence of a strong protective framework to support the Applicant in the event that he was released into the community. The Tribunal accordingly finds that in these circumstances there is a heightened risk of further reoffending in the future.
13. The evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal at review indicates that the Applicant has largely repressed his history of abuse at the hands of his father both physical and emotional. This has no doubt taken a toll upon him and the Applicant has only begun to unpack this with courses that he has attended in prison.
14. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has engaged in illicit drug use since he was a teenager and has used it as a mechanism to dampen his internal thoughts with respect to his dysfunctional father.
15. The Tribunal finds that in circumstances where the Applicant's crimes that he may commit in the future could cause physical 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 May 2023 by Ms Cidoni, and moderate in assessments conducted by Mr Dominguez, and with respect to family violence is a high risk, that 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. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant entered into a relationship as a young adult with his ex-partner who was 12 years his senior. The evidence suggests that the Applicant engaged in this relationship as a mechanism of escaping from the dysfunction that he experienced whilst living with his father. The evidence indicates that during the course of this relationship the Applicant was introduced to a range of illicit drugs including methamphetamines and LSD and that he developed a drug addiction during the course of the relationship.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that there were two instances of family violence perpetrated by the Applicant against his former partner. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant committed the offence of recklessly causing injury to his ex-partner on 24 April 2020. The evidence as discussed indicates that on the day in question, the Applicant and his former partner were arguing with the victim demanding that he leave the property. The Applicant placed his hands over the victim's mouth to stop her raising her voice, a scuffle ensued, and the Applicant slapped the victim and told her to stop screaming. The evidence referenced at page 225 of the joint tender bundle indicates that the Applicant placed his fingers into the victim's mouth and pushed her tongue causing bleeding from the pressure. The altercation was only disrupted when a neighbour overheard the incident. The Applicant broke a window as he left the premises, and the evidence indicates that the victim urinated herself during the incident due to her fear.
3. The second incidence of family violence offending perpetrated by the Applicant against his ex-partner occurred on 27 December 2020 and is referenced in a report by Mr Dominguez at page 225 of the joint tender bundle. The evidence indicates that the victim believed that her cat was missing and sent a text message to the Applicant asking him whether he had taken the cat. In due course the victim allowed the Applicant to enter her property, she believed he was going to reveal the whereabouts of the cat. The victim and the Applicant and the victim's minor son attempted to look for the cat. When the cat could not be retrieved, the Applicant followed the victim and her son back to her apartment at which time the victim took her son into a bedroom where they both sat against a door to attempt to prevent the Applicant from entering the bedroom. The Applicant waited in the lounge room at the premises. When the victim eventually exited the bedroom and entered the lounge room it caused the victim's son to phone the victims 24-year-old daughter for assistance. The Applicant proceeded to grab the victim and pin her to the couch, pinching her arms and scratching her face and body at which time the Applicant knocked out one of the victim's bottom teeth and caused bruising to her legs and torso. The Applicant stole the victim's phone so she could not call the police. The victim's minor son jumped onto the Applicants back and sprayed wipe cleaner into his eyes. The Applicant continued to assault the victim until such time as her minor son went to a neighbour for assistance. The Applicant fled the premises taking the victim's keys, speaker and her phone. The Applicant when apprehended and interviewed by the police refused to make a statement however, he did acknowledge that he had broken a family violence intervention order.
4. The chronology of these events was put to the Applicant at the review hearing and the Applicant agreed with that chronology.
5. It was also put to the Applicant at the review hearing that the evidence indicated that the victim of his family violence offending on the second occasion his ex-partner was moved into crisis accommodation with her minor son. The evidence indicated that the Applicant was convicted on 13 October 2021 with a raft of family violence offending against his ex-partner.
6. The Applicant claims that since he has been in prison he has taken remedial steps to address family violence and anger management. These efforts are admirable however, they have not been able to be tested in the community. Further, there do not appear to be any other protective mechanisms available to the Applicant in the community such as close family members.
7. The Minister's representative pointed the Tribunal to the findings of Mr Dominguez with respect to the Applicant's participation in the Moderate Intensity Violence Intervention program which he commenced on 1 October 2024 and completed on 13 December 2024 whilst in prison. It was noted that the Applicant participated in all 33 modules of the program however, the convener of the program Mr Dominguez, applying the Violence Risk Scale (VSR), determined that there was a moderate risk of the Applicant engaging in further violence and a high risk of the Applicant engaging in spousal violence going forward. Mr Dominguez concluded that this meant that the Applicant fell into a category that posed a considerably higher risk than the average person who violently offends and would require a high level of supervision and resources to address the risk of future spousal violence.
8. The direction in respect of family violence is clear and prescriptive. It states that "the government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the noncitizen".
9. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has been convicted of two sets of family violence offending. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has breached family violence intervention orders imposed by the courts. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has engaged in serious physical violence against a former partner resulting in physical injury and trauma. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's former partner and her minor son were removed into protection after the second incident of family violence. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's family violence offending occurred whilst he was on strict bail conditions with respect to his index offending.

1. The Tribunal accordingly finds with respect to Primary Consideration 2 that heavy weight should be given to this primary consideration against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's evidence that he has attempted whilst in prison to address anger management and has engaged in the Moderate Intensity Violence Intervention Program. The Tribunal is fortified in this finding by the fact that despite the Applicant's engagement in this program in late 2024, the Applicant was assessed by Mr Dominguez to be at 'high risk' of engaging in future family violence offending.

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 arrived in Australia with his parents and his two sisters on 1 December 2014 when he was 15 years of age. The evidence indicates that the Applicant spent the first half of his life in the United Kingdom and the intervening period in Australia.
5. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's mother and two sisters have relocated to the United Kingdom in 2023 and there is no cogent evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal indicating when and if they are likely to return to Australia. The Applicant gave evidence that his younger sister hopes to be able to study in an Australian university in the future but that has not been confirmed. The Applicant also gave evidence that indicated that his mother is responsible for the care of her own mother in the United Kingdom since the passing of his maternal grandfather in 2023.
6. There is no evidence of support beyond immediate family members and, as noted, the Applicant's mother and two sisters are in the United Kingdom and the Applicant is estranged from his father.
7. The evidence indicates that the Applicant completed the balance of his high school studies in Australia undertaking vocational studies. The evidence further indicates that the Applicant has engaged in a number of courses in the community and since his imprisonment. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has no extensive work history in the community and no doubt his work history was impacted by the years in which he devolved into drug abuse.
8. The Minister's representative suggested that the Tribunal could give slight weight to this consideration.
9. The Tribunal finds that with respect to the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia that in the event that the Applicant was removed there is no evidence of an adverse impact on immediate family members in Australia for the reasons cited.
10. Based on the fact that the Applicant has spent just under half of his life in Australia since his arrival in December 2014, the Tribunal apportions slight weight to this consideration in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of his visa.

1. Primary Consideration 3 is given slight 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 no minor children.
2. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant's younger sister Luciana, is 17 and consequently is a minor. The evidence submitted at hearing indicates that Luciana is not residing in Australia and is residing with her mother and sister in the United Kingdom. The evidence indicates that the relationship that the Applicant has with Luciana is non-parental. The Applicant's own evidence is that he had limited contact with Luciana from 2020 and only intermittent contact with her in 2021 and 2022 and no contact since his imprisonment in 2023.
3. Having regard to this primary consideration the Tribunal gives neutral weight to this consideration in favour of revocation of the Applicant's cancelled visa.

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 has conceded that his offending has been 'outrageous' and not what would be expected by the wider Australian community.
3. The Respondent's submissions that the nature of the Applicant's offences since 2020 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 two acts of family violence.
4. The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not meet the Australian community's expectations that he would obey the laws of this country, and that community expectation would be that his visa should remain cancelled.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 or family 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 the United Kingdom and did not take out Australian citizenship, despite living in Australia since 2014. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom.
4. There is no evidence that non-refoulement obligations are relevant or arise with respect to the Applicant.
5. 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 claims that he would face impediments. The Applicant stated that he has not lived in the United Kingdom since 2014 and claims that he has limited engagement with relatives that reside in that country. Despite this evidence, the Applicant's mother and two sisters relocated to the United Kingdom in 2023 and currently reside there on a permanent basis. As discussed, the Applicant is estranged from his father. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has accrued a wide range of qualifications in Australia both in the community and whilst in prison. As a young man the Applicant should be able to utilise these qualifications to obtain meaningful employment in the United Kingdom.
2. The Applicant advised the Tribunal that since he has been in prison he has been receiving monthly buprenorphine injections and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that he would be precluded from doing so in the United Kingdom.
3. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant as a citizen of the United Kingdom would be able to avail himself of the Social Security network, the national health scheme and other benefits available to citizens of the United Kingdom.
4. The Tribunal finds that this consideration should be given neutral weight 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 2 whether the conduct engaged in by the Applicant constituted family violence;

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

1. Primary Consideration 3 is given slight weight in favour of revocation.
2. Primary Consideration 4 is given neutral weight.
3. To the extent that they are relevant, the Other Considerations weigh in favour of the revocation.
4. The Tribunal has been tasked with making a decision that has harsh and indeed lifelong consequences for the Applicant.
5. 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 and that his risk of engaging in family violence offending is high. Given the Applicant's criminal history to date the Tribunal finds that any risk is too great a risk. The Applicant criminal history since 2020 is such that 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.
6. 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 BB Subclass Five Year Resident Return visa is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 278 (two-hundred-and-seventy-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Cipolla.

............[SGD]........................................................