1. The hearing was held on 10 June 2025 in Perth. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared with the support of her mother, Ms Gladys Quintal. The Respondent was represented by Ms Maggie Woollett of the Australian Government Solicitor. The parties appeared by Microsoft Teams.
2. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. No other witnesses were called.
3. The following documents were tendered as exhibits by the Applicant:

(a) Email from Mr Justin Priest, dated and filed 29 July 2024 (Exhibit A1). > > (b) Email from the Applicant dated 29 July 2024 forwarding email of Mr Ben Jackson dated 28 July 2024 and filed 29 July 2024 (Exhibit A2). > > (c) Email from the Applicant's Mother dated 4 September 2024 and filed 5 September 2024 (Exhibit A3). > > (d) Screenshots of text messages, various dates, filed 2 June 2025 (Exhibit A4). > > (e) Statement of Ms Leah Peterson dated 7 June 2025, filed 8 June 2025 (Exhibit A5); > > (f) Statement of Ms Angelina Robinson, undated, filed 8 June 2025 (Exhibit A6); > > (g) Statement of Mr Dylan Ranford, dated and filed 9 June 2025 (Exhibit A7); > > (h) Statement of Mr Ryan Newman, undated, filed 10 June 2025 (Exhibit A8); and > > (i) Documents provided at hearing on 10 June 2025 (Exhibit A9).

4. The following materials were tendered as exhibits by the Respondent:

(a) Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions filed 10 February 2025 (Exhibit R1); > > (b) Respondent's T-Documents, T1 - T17, comprised of pages 1 - 188, filed 1 July 2024 (Exhibit R2); and > > (c) Respondent's Supplementary T-Documents, SB1, comprised of pages 1 - 130, filed 10 February 2025 (Exhibit R3).

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that all evidence was before it and both parties were given the opportunity to address all the evidence orally and in writing.

1. In her handwritten letter to the Department, the Applicant stated that her offending was influenced by a 'domestic violence relationship with [her] ex-partner' and 'losing a close friend in a freak boating accident then having to join a police search for his body.'[1]
2. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant that:

(a) She understood that the effect of her licence being disqualified in 2017 was that she was not permitted to drive. She drove again without a licence two months after her three month disqualification had ended as she needed to drive for work. > > (b) As to the six offences for which she was charged on 12 July 2020, she recalled that she had tested positive to drugs, had failed to display her P-plates, that her number plates were in the boot of her car, that she had failed to provide the roadside test for drugs because her mouth was so dry and her weapons charge was her first, having carried a blade for fear of her partner, with whom she had just broken up. > > (c) Her prior drug use was highly influenced by her then partner, who was a drug user and she had spiralled down a bad path. She last consumed drugs of any kind in January 2022, the date of her last offence. > > (d) She has undertaken treatment for her mental health but has not undergone any specialised treatment for drug use. > > (e) Her relationship with her partner ended in approximately 2020, after approximately 6 years together. > > (f) She accepted that 10 of her 12 offences took place before the date of her friend's boating accident on 1 December 2020, however the aftermath of her relationship with her ex-partner continued for long after. > > (g) She has paid her fines issued as a result of her offending and submitted evidence in this regard to demonstrate that she is trying to make good decisions and is not going to reoffend.

(a) She did not seek specific mental health treatment after 2017, but she did attend Twice Blessed for a care plan at a time before the restraining order was issued against her ex-partner in 2019. > > (b) Her character referees are aware of her criminal offending, despite this not being expressly stated (other than by Mr Jackson).

1. The Respondent is of the view that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
2. The Respondent provided detailed written submissions in the RSFIC paragraphs [24] - [37] regarding:

(a) The nature of the Applicant's conduct; and > > (b) The Applicant's mental health and drug use.

3. The Respondent indicated that it continued to rely on those written submissions.
4. At hearing, the Respondent added:

(a) It maintains that it is not in a position, at this time, to be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character, for the purposes of the Act. > > (b) The Applicant has not provided a sufficient explanation of how her offending was linked to her friend's boating accident, especially her July 2020 offending. > > (c) The Applicant knew it was wrong for her to drive at the time she did so when her licence was disqualified and did it anyway. > > (d) There is no evidence of the Applicant's medical history from 2018 to 2024 and no documented insight into the Applicant's mental health from 2020 to 2022.

5. In considering whether it can be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the time of the Reviewable Decision, the Tribunal is required to consider the Applicant's offending history and any other relevant conduct, as well as any potentially mitigating circumstances.
6. The Tribunal notes with agreement the Respondent's submissions at RSIC paragraphs [24] - [37] and adds:

(a) The Applicant's offending history consists of 12 offences, 10 of which were committed prior to the date of her friend's boating accident and six of which occurred on a day prior to this accident but at about the time of, or just after, her relationship with her ex-partner ended. It is a commonplace proposition that driving and traffic offending is regarded as serious in nature and with adverse consequences and there are numerous Tribunal authorities in this regard. > > (b) The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence that the aftermath of their relationship, which ended in approximately 2022, continued for some time (noting she did cease using drugs entirely in 2022) and that at least one of her character referees, Mr Jackson, is aware of the full extent of her offending. > > (c) However, the gaps that remain and the evidence that is yet to be established is an explanation of the link or links between the Applicant's offending, her past drug use, her mental health conditions and the stressful and traumatic life events she suffered during this time. > > (d) This leaves the Tribunal in a position where while it accepts that the Applicant's past relationship and the boating accident negatively impacted that the Applicant's mental health, it is currently unclear if, and if so, how these circumstances and/or any other circumstances, contributed to her offending conduct. > > (e) To be clear, it is not the case that the Tribunal has found that the evidence demonstrates that these factors expressly did not contribute to, trigger or precipitate the Applicant's offending. Rather, it is that without any evidence in this regard, the Tribunal in unable to meaningfully consider whether this is the case. > > (f) The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is remorseful for her offending conduct, has paid the fines issued for her offending, has been abstaining from driving while she is not permitted to do so and has the mindset that she will not reoffend and will not continue to make poor decisions. > > (g) Indeed, this may end up being the case. However, given the Applicant's last offences was committed in January 2022, approximately three years ago and there was also a three year lapse between her 2017 and 2020 offending, the Tribunal is of the view that this time lapse is insufficient in order to satisfy the Tribunal that she is of good character, for present purposes. > > (h) As reiterated to the Applicant at the hearing, and similarly noted by the Respondent in paragraph [48] of its SFIC, a further period of free time from offending may well support a better case for citizenship, of which the Applicant is free to re-apply at any time.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character under section 21(2)(h) of the Act. This is the sole issue and, that being so, the Reviewable Decision is affirmed.

1. The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 5 April 2024, to refuse the Applicant's application for citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.

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

Ms Maggie Woollett of the Australian Government Solicitor