(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and

(b) if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether I am satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[12]

1. The Applicant's case is not an easy one. As discussed further below, sexual offending against children is very serious, presenting a risk of serious harm to those who are among the community's most vulnerable members. The Australian community would expect the Applicant's visa to remain cancelled. However, there are factors limiting the likelihood of reoffending and the Applicant has strong ties to Australia. He is of advanced age and suffers from serious health conditions requiring ongoing treatment and support. He has lived in Australia for decades and has no remaining ties in the United Kingdom. Balancing the considerations in such matters is challenging.
2. For the reasons outlined below, having considered all the circumstances of the Applicant's case and having weighed the relevant matters raised in Direction no.110, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be set aside and the cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, such as where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, that cancellation decision can be revoked by the Minister or by the Tribunal on review.
2. These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test, and if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel a visa should be revoked.
3. The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by

subsection (7)); ...

1. A 'substantial criminal record' is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:

(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: ...

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 months or more; ...

1. Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the visa of certain persons if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
2. Additionally, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the person must be 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.
3. If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[13] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under s 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.[14]

1. The hearing was conducted in person at the Tribunal's Perth Registry on 27 August 2025. The Applicant appeared in person and was represented by Louis Martin of Estrin Saul. At the time of the hearing the Applicant was detained at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre and was brought to the Perth Registry for the hearing. As the Applicant has identified hearing loss, a hearing loop was made available to the Applicant during the hearing which he used at his discretion including while giving evidence. The Minister was represented by Ashley Burgess of Australian Government Solicitor.
2. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing. The Tribunal also took evidence from the following witnesses:

(a) Dr Lorraine Sheridan, psychologist; > > (b) Mrs K, the Applicant's wife; > > (c) Mrs M, the Applicant's stepdaughter;

3. Dr Sheridan gave evidence by video, and Mrs K and Mrs M gave evidence in person.
4. The Tribunal admitted the following documents into evidence:

(a) A Hearing Book compiled by the Respondent and agreed upon by the parties (R1); > > (b) Applicant's further bundle filed 22 August 2025 comprising 8 pages (A1).

5. The Hearing Book included the following submissions:

(a) The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 29 July 2025 (ASFIC); > > (b) The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 12 August 2025 (RSFIC); and > > (c) The Applicant's submissions in reply, dated 19 August 2025 (Reply).

1. As noted above, the character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined by s 501(7). Relevant to the Applicant's case,

a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more'.[15] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[16] 2. The Applicant conceded he did not pass the character test.[17] 3. As noted above, on 2 February 2024 the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia of 'aggravated indecent dealing of child under 13 in a circumstance of aggravation', for which he received a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment.[18] 4. As the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. 5. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[19]

1. As I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, I must then determine whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[20]
2. I am required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked, reasonably and on a correct understanding of the law.[21] In doing so I must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[22]

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made 'Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA' (Direction no. 110) under s 499 of the Migration Act. Direction no. 110 commenced operation on 21 June 2024, replacing the previous Direction no. 99.[23]
2. An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[24] In considering the exercise of the power under s 501CA(4), informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110, I must take account of the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[25]
3. In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the primary considerations to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[26]
   • the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
   • family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);
   • the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia;
   • the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
   • the expectations of the Australian community.
4. The other considerations that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the application, include (but are not limited to):[27]
   • the legal consequences of the decision;
   • the extent of impediments if removed; and
   • the impact on Australian business interests.
5. I must also take into account any other considerations or representations made by the Applicant in support of his request that the cancellation of his visa be revoked.
6. In this case the parties agreed that the primary consideration with respect to family violence was not engaged in the Applicant's circumstances. No other considerations outside those identified in Direction no. 110 were raised by the Applicant is support of the application.
7. The principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA'. Those principles highlight that the safety of the Australian community is the government's highest priority and that Australia has a right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. They stress that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred in those individuals will be law-abiding, will respect Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not harm members of the community. The principles state that the community expects the government to cancel visas of individuals whose conduct raises serious character concerns regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
8. Direction no. 110 provides that while the community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by individuals holding a limited stay visa, or who have only been contributing to the community for a short period of time, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of such conduct where the individual has lived in the community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
9. Noting that primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case must be taken into account, Direction no. 110 states that, in some circumstances, the nature of the 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 revoking a mandatory cancellation of a visa including in circumstances where 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.
10. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

Direction no. 110 can be found in paragraph 7, which provides that: * Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations. * The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. * One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. 11. The Applicant's central contention was that he has strong ties to Australia and does not represent an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that the cancellation decision should be revoked. With respect to the matters arising for consideration under Direction no. 110 the Applicant contended, in summary:[28] * He accepted that the offence must be considered to be very serious and that, were he to reoffend in a similar manner, the harm which would be caused would be very serious and would include emotional psychological and potentially physical harm to the victim. However, he contended that the risk of harm must be considered very low and that the likelihood of his engaging in further criminal rather serious conduct is very low; * He conceded that his conviction to the offence against his step granddaughter would constitute family violence and would weigh against him but noted that there was no evidence of family violence perpetrated against any other personal involving any other conduct; * He has no family ties in the United Kingdom and he has close family ties in Australia, including family members who would be significantly impacted by his removal, noting that he has resided in Australia for more than 44 years and has lived here for over half of his life. He has strong ties to the community through family, employment and friends and these weigh strongly in favour of revocation; * Four of his minor step grandchildren in Australia would be affected by the decision and it is in their best interest that the cancellation is revoked, notwithstanding he does not play a parental role in their lives and that they are otherwise able to be cared for by their parents; * He is elderly and in poor physical health, suffering from multiple serious medical conditions requiring high level of ongoing care and treatment. He has no remaining family ties to the United Kingdom and does not have support from family or friends there. His health issues were such that there was significant concern about his ability to withstand the process for repatriation to United Kingdom. 12. The Minister submitted, in summary, that:[29] * The Applicant's offending should be viewed very seriously and weighs heavily against revocation. The nature of the harm which would flow, should the Applicant engage in further offending or similar behaviours, should be given significant weight and for which any risk at all is unacceptable. While the Applicant was assessed in prison context as being a low risk of reoffending there were issues with the information provided to the expert psychologist called by the Applicant such that she considered the risk reflected in her report would be higher than indicated in that report. Having regard to the qualifications to that report and relevant information withheld from the psychologist, the risk should be considered to be in the moderate range and, in any event, any risk should be considered unacceptable. * The Applicant has engaged in family violence. The victim is his step granddaughter and, given the seriousness of the offending, the consideration weighs heavily against revocation; * The Minister conceded the Applicant has ties to Australia and that there will be adverse impacts on members whose immediate family if the visa remains cancelled however this consideration did not outweigh those against revocation; * Given the seriousness of the offence, the Australian community would expect the Applicant would not continue to hold a visa; * Regarding the Applicant returning to the United Kingdom by plane, there was no evidence that the Applicant was unable to fly in terms of either submissions regarding the likelihood of him remaining in prolonged immigration detention or with respect to impediments to his removal; * The Minister accepted there may be some impediments to the Applicant being able to establish himself in the United Kingdom however he would have access to a similar level of medical care and support in the United Kingdom and would face no language or cultural barriers in that country.

1. The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community. Direction no. 110 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and 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, the Tribunal is directed to 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.[30]
2. Direction no. 110 provides that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[31]
3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers should give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date.[32] In doing so, para 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that I must have regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are 'viewed very seriously' by the Australian Government and the Australian community. Direction no. 110 also provides that certain other offences or conduct are considered to be 'serious'. I note that while Direction no. 110 expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[33]
2. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending or other conduct to date, I must have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; the cumulative effect of repeated offending; whether the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; whether the Applicant has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the Applicant's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
3. In addition, Direction no. 110 introduced a requirement under this consideration that I consider the impact of the offending on any victims and their family, where information regarding this is available, and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness as part of its consideration of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and other serious conduct.[34]
4. The conviction on 2 February 2024 for 'aggravated indecent dealing of child under 13 in a circumstance of aggravation' is the Applicant's only recorded conviction.[35]
5. The Applicant claims not to remember the incident but accepted the Court's findings as noted in the sentencing transcript and summarised in the delegate's decision record.[36] The sentencing remarks recorded the circumstances of the offence as follows:[37]

[Miss L's] father, [Mr J], is the son of [Mrs K], your wife. So you are [Miss L's] step-grandfather. [Miss L's] parents separated when she was very young. [Miss L] would go and stay with her grandmother, [Mrs K], and you over weekends from Friday to Sunday when she was around nine or 10 years of age. While others lived at address on occasions, she would be alone with you when others were at work or elsewhere. You were retired at the time. > > On an occasion between 30 January 2016 and 1 January 2017 when [Miss L] was nine years of age, [Miss L] was with you and her younger sister, [Miss KA], who was then about four or five years of age. You were in the living room and you were tickling [Miss L] and her sister, so she and her sister ran to hide. Her sister ran into the spare room and hid in the closet and [Miss L] ran into the bedroom of you and [Mrs K] and hid under pillows on the bed. > > You pulled [Miss L] out from the pillows and you were tickling [Miss L] under her arm and to the front of her chest, as well as to her legs, and she felt paralysed by the tickling. [Miss L] was laying on her stomach on the bed and you were turning her around on her stomach, and you were behind her, standing up. > > Then you put her hand down her pants and started touching her vagina under her clothes and her underwear. You used one or two of your fingers and you were rubbing in a round motion on the outside of her vagina. [Miss L] tried to run away but you were holding her down. [Miss L] kept struggling and was able to run away back to the lounge room.

6. I am required, pursuant to Direction no. 110, to take into account a range of factors, including certain conduct which is to be regarded as 'very serious' or 'serious'.[38] At 8.1.1.1(1)(a)(ii) this includes:

crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed

7. The Applicant accepted that the offence must be considered to be very serious, noting that Direction no. 110 states that crimes sexual nature against children would be viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed. I consider this concession was rightly made and that it is clear that the offending is to be viewed very seriously.
8. In addition to the direction that such offending is very serious, the sentencing remarks highlight aggravating features of the offending which the sentencing judge considered increased the Applicant's culpability with respect to the offence, and which I consider contribute to the objective assessment of its very serious nature. This included that the Applicant was in a familial relationship with the child who regarded the Applicant as her grandfather and that he was responsible for her care at the time of the offence. This was a significant breach of trust and of his duty of care to his step granddaughter.[39]
9. Other aggravating features included that the offence involved touching the child's genital area and was 'not fleeting' but involved 'a degree of force or coercion towards her' in holding her down and that it occurred while her younger sister was present and nearby. [40]
10. There was inconsistent evidence at trial about whether the incident was a one-off or continuing course of conduct. Having regard to the inconsistencies and doubts about whether the offending occurred on any other occasion, the sentencing judge dealt with the offence as a one-off.[41] There is no evidence before me calling that approach into question and I accept the offending was a one-off against the Applicant's step granddaughter.
11. The sentencing judge detailed the contents of the victim impact statement from the Applicant's step granddaughter as follows:[42]

...[T]his offence has impacted [Miss L's] self-esteem, her ability to trust others, as well as her mental health. She now suffers anxiety, depression and poor sleep as a result. > > This offending has also impacted her in other ways, including her education opportunities, because its effects caused her to lose focus at a crucial time in her education. And she was unable to complete high school as a result. > > [Miss L] has also been ostracized from her family as a result of reporting this offence. She is now estranged from her grandmother, from her cousins and even her own father. She's not seen her younger sister in almost three years. As she said in the statement, the emotional toll of this separation is immeasurable.

12. The Applicant conceded the impact on his step granddaughter would have been significant and testified that he regretted the impact on her. In my view the stated impact on the victim reflects the very serious nature of the offence.[43]
13. This was the Applicant's only recorded offence, and the sentencing judge was prepared to treat the offending as being out of character.[44] There was no evidence of frequent or repeated offending or of a trend of increasing seriousness.[45] There was no evidence the Applicant provided false information to the Department or had been re-offended since being formally warned.[46]
14. The Tribunal notes that the hearing bundle contained statements of material facts which appeared to relate to alleged offences against another child. During cross-examination the Applicant offered that those related to the stepson of his stepson, a cousin of the victim. While the status of those matters was not clear on the material before the Tribunal, the Applicant testified that he was charged and acquitted of those offences at the trial which gave rise to the conviction with respect to his step granddaughter.
15. While there was no evidence to confirm this, I considered this evidence to be credible and the Minister did not challenge it. The Applicant submitted, and the Tribunal accepts, that matters in relation to which the Applicant was charged and tried and found not guilty by a jury are not matters which the Tribunal should have regard to as conduct or offences. Where the Applicant has been found not guilty of offences for which he has been tried I consider that outcome must be accepted. Accordingly, the Tribunal has placed no weight on those statements of material facts or the conduct alleged in them in assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and offending. The Minister did not contend any alternative position should be adopted by the Tribunal.
16. As noted below, the charges raised in that material and confirmed in the Applicant's evidence were considered by the psychologist to be relevant to the assessment of risk as they are a static factor to be weighed in the model for assessing risk. This is somewhat different than having regard to these matters as conduct or offending in this part of Direction no. 110, a position which the Applicant accepted. To the extent the charges were taken into account by the expert witness in forming an assessment of risk of reoffending, I considered those were matters about which the witness was qualified to make an expert assessment and that they were relevant for the reasons explained in her testimony. Those matters are considered further below.
17. The Tribunal considers the Applicant's conduct and offending to be very serious and to weigh against revocation.

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

1. I am required to assess the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[47] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[48]
2. Direction no. 110 refers to the 'risk to the Australian community' and 'likelihood of reoffending' as distinct though related concepts.[49] 'Likelihood' of reoffending is an element to be considered in determining the 'risk' to the community. The other is the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend. In my experience, the terms 'risk' and 'likelihood' are often used interchangeably with respect to assessing whether an Applicant may reoffend.
3. The analysis of risk to the community requires not only an assessment of the Applicant's individual likelihood of reoffending, but also the nature of the harm associated with reoffending. For example, a low individual likelihood of reoffending may still represent a significant risk to the community where the harm which would be caused is very serious. Care must be exercised when referring to risk of reoffending assessments which are more properly characterised, in the context of this consideration, as assessments of the likelihood of reoffending. Those assessments may or may not involve assessments of the nature of harm which would be caused if the Applicant would reoffend.

1. Determining the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct involves an assessment of the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[50]
2. The Applicant accepted that, were he to reoffend in a similar manner, the harm which would be caused would be very serious and would include emotional, psychological and potentially physical harm to the victim.[51]
3. The lasting harm done to children who are victims of sexual offending and to their families was noted by her Honour DCJ Zempalis in her sentencing remarks.[52] It is also demonstrated in the account of the victim statement in those remarks.
4. I consider that the harm which would be caused were the Applicant to reoffend in a similar manner would include serious psychological, emotional and physical harm to children and emotional and psychological harm to their family members.
5. I consider the nature of the harm which would be caused were the Applicant to reoffend in a similar manner to be very serious.

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[53]
2. The Applicant contended that the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal rather serious conduct is very low having regard to protective and deterrent factors including remorse, his family support, age and physical ill-health. In support of this contention, the Applicant offered the psychological assessment report of Dr Lorraine Sheridan of Mindstate Psychology.[54]
3. The Minister contended that while the Applicant accepted his conviction, his claim to not recall the offence amounted to a denial and demonstrated limited insight. The Minister contended that, based on the evidence of the Applicant's psychologist, the risk should be considered in the moderate range and, in any event, any risk should be considered unacceptable given the nature of the harm which would be caused were he to reoffend.
4. The Applicant maintained in evidence before the Tribunal that he could not recall the offence but that he accepted his conviction and was 'remorseful'. In his most recent statement, the Applicant said:[55]

I accept that what the judge said in the sentencing transcript is true. I do not remember the incident, but I accept that that is what the court found and I am very sorry for what happened. I really do hope that the young lady gets on in life and does well.

5. This was consistent with his evidence before the Tribunal. The Minister contended that while the Applicant maintained he accepted his conviction, his claim to fail to recall the offence was in fact a denial of responsibility which demonstrated a lack of insight. I consider there was some merit to this submission noting Mrs K's evidence made it clear the Applicant had told her he did not commit the offence, and the statements of support declaring he will not reoffend because 'it is not in his nature to offend or harm anyone'.[56] The Applicant provided a letter of support from his granddaughter, Miss A, who makes it clear she does not believe the allegations against the Applicant.[57] It was also broadly consistent with Dr Sheridan's assessment which noted that the Applicant had denied the offending (rather than not recalling it).
6. The Applicant did not complete any rehabilitation programs in prison, having been assessed as a low risk of reoffending. According to the prison records, a Risk of Reoffending - Prison Version (RoR-PV) assessment screening tool was applied to the Applicant in prison on 9 May 2024.[58] The Applicant's Classification Review summarises the recommendations of the treatment assessment undertaken on 9 May 2024 as follows:[59]

The current assessment identified [the Applicant] as a low risk of general offending and very low risk for Alcohol/Drug Problem. Given his lack of general offending history and low overall risk/need in relation to substance use issues, there would be little benefit from including in general offending programs. In terms of sexual offending, based on the Static-99R and Stable-2007 combined, he presented a 'Very Low Risk'. He scored on few criminogenic risk/need factors. [The Applicant] scored 'very low risk' and therefore he was not eligible for inclusion in the sex offending specific program.

7. The Classification Review does not specify the total score the Applicant received after the Static-99R or Stable-2007 tools were administered. The Applicant contended that a finding of 'very low risk' in the Static-99R equates to Risk Level 1 which describes individuals who have committed a sexual offence, but whose current risk is not meaningfully different from that of individuals in the criminal legal system with no history of sexual offending.[60] As there was limited information before the Tribunal regarding the Applicant's scoring in that testing I rely on the summary in the classification review and do not consider extrapolating scores provides much assistance in the assessment task before me. Further, Dr Sheridan's report and evidence provides a more recent assessment which she has explained in detail and about which she gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. As such I prefer her evidence and place greater weight on Dr Sheridan's evidence than the evidence regarding the prison assessment.
8. Consistent with his low risk assessment in prison, the Applicant did not undertake rehabilitation programs in prison. However, the Applicant gave evidence that he undertook psychological counselling sessions in prison, though his offending was not discussed as he could not remember it.[61]
9. As noted above, the Applicant submitted a formal risk assessment by forensic psychologist Dr Sheridan, conducted on 24 July 2025 and included in a psychological assessment report dated 1 August 2025.[62] The Applicant contended this supported a finding that he presents a low risk of reoffending and that this risk is not unacceptable.
10. The report includes the following findings or observations:

(a) the Applicant's Static-99R score falls into the lowest risk category possible, with recidivism rates for people in this category estimated to be 0.7% to 2% over five years;[63] > > (b) the Applicant's advanced age, the absence of any prior offending history, and the absence of any stranger or male victims are all factors that indicate a low risk of reoffending;[64] > > (c) the Applicant has not participated in specific sex offender programs, with his prison records indicating he was not eligible for inclusion in any such programs due to his low scores following risk assessments conducted by Corrective Services; > > (d) the Applicant's psychological profile, as reflected in the results of a 'Personality Assessment Inventory', suggested that traditional cognitive-behavioural interventions for sex offenders may be of limited effectiveness due to his 'defensive mindset and need to be viewed positively by others'. Features of his personality 'would likely interfere with authentic engagement in treatment';[65] > > (e) the Applicant has demonstrated some practical insight into appropriate boundaries through recognition that he should not be alone with children, and his stated acceptance that family members would ensure appropriate supervision and indicated a willingness to comply with any conditions or restrictions;[66] > > (f) a correlation between the Applicant's health issues and the offending behaviour cannot be definitively established and his personality features suggest that 'characterological factors involving his need for acceptance and approval may be more relevant than medical ones in understanding his behaviour';[67] and > > (g) several aspects of the Applicant's presentation raised potential concerns but may have been referrable at least in part to hearing difficulties. However, his tendency towards self-serving narratives did not necessarily indicate a general propensity for sexual offending;[68] > > (h) the Applicant's posed living arrangements in the community provide a structured routine with natural supervision and accountability. Risk would be further mitigated by physical limitations, his consistent work history in positions of trust; > > (i) the 'most concerning aspect in terms of risk is not necessarily [the Applicant's] past behaviour, but his apparent lack of genuine insight into the offending' as his maintained innocence 'prevents full engagement with treatment interventions and internal risk reduction strategies'.[69]

11. In her conclusion Dr Sheridan notes the risk to the Australian community is mitigated by 'substantial natural protective factors' that include his advanced age, physical limitations and dependence on others. His expressions of remorse are based on 'impression management' rather than 'genuine victim empathy'. His psychological profile suggests he 'would be resistant to traditional interventions' however he 'demonstrates a practical awareness of appropriate boundaries and supervision needs'. Finally, Dr Sheridan notes:[70]

...[P]otentially concerning aspects of his psychological makeup would appear to be substantially mitigated by his current physical incapacity. These potentially worrying elements can also be viewed as deterrent against offending, as [the Applicant's] deep need for acceptance would likely ensure high compliance with any imposed conditions.

12. Dr Sheridan was questioned about her report at the hearing and it became evident that there were relevant aspects of the Applicant's history which had not been factored into her assessment as they had not been disclosed to her. This principally included the fact the Applicant had been charged, though not convicted, of offences against another child who was a male. Dr Sheridan indicated that prior charges were relevant to the Static-99 assessment, in summary because charges were treated as a relevant indicator of risk, given the difficulty associated with securing convictions in these kinds of offences. The fact the other child was male was also relevant because offences against males was associated with a higher degree of sexual deviance and likelihood of reoffending. Factoring this information, Dr Sheridan indicated the Static-99 risk would rise to the moderate range.
13. Noting she was not provided with this information until she was giving evidence she indicated, reasonably, that she was unable to definitively say what impact that change would have on her overall risk assessment other than to say the risk would be higher. However, she noted that the substantial nature protective factors outlined in the report would remain.
14. Concerns were also raised with the fact that the Applicant had denied offending in his interview with Dr Sheridan but had consistently given evidence that he could not recall the events. Ultimately Dr Sheridan considered those responses were consistent with the psychological profile concerns she had recorded in the report - that is, the Applicant's need to be viewed positively by others and preparedness to create a narrative which met his view of his own conduct and position.
15. While the changes to the assessment were not insignificant, overall Dr Sheridan returned to a reliance on what she described as 'substantial natural protective factors' including the Applicant's age, ill health and reliance on others and the fact his need to be perceived well by others may act as a deterrent where his past behaviour had become known. Overall, the Tribunal understood Dr Sheridan's evidence to be that these factors continued to render further offending less likely than the Static 99 results might otherwise suggest.
16. Dr Sheridan gave evidence in a manner which was frank and clear. She attempted to assist where she could to adjust her assessment to take account of issues raised and clearly articulated what she felt were the risks and protective factors in the Applicant's case. On that basis I am prepared to place significant weight on her assessment notwithstanding the adjustments required. In particular, I accept Dr Sheridan's overall assessment that in the Applicant's case the protective and deterrent factors present would reduce the likelihood the Applicant would, or could, reoffend, notwithstanding her concerns over his psychological profile and in particular his lack of insight and genuine remorse.
17. It was contended by the Applicant that the imposed term of imprisonment and the present character cancellation proceedings should be found to have had a salutary impact on him, irrespective of his degree of remorse or insight into his offending, noting research has consistently shown that the certainty of apprehended consequences has an increased deterrent effect upon offending and that there is no strong link between denial and recidivism.[71] However, I consider this runs somewhat at odds with the views expressed by Dr Sheridan whose evidence on this point I prefer. Dr Sheridan was clear that a lack of insight was a concern in assessing risk. She was also clear that the exposure caused by his conviction may be a deterrent because of the Applicant's psychological profile. I consider those observations which are specific to the Applicant to be of more assistance than generalised studies and as such place greater weight on those in undertaking the task set by Direction no. 110.
18. I acknowledge the Applicant is subject to a lifetime Family Violence Restraining Order protecting the victim and binding him from, among other things, attempting to communicate or approach the victim. I acknowledge the Applicant is also a Reportable Offender under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004, with the effect that he will be subject to reporting obligations for 15 years from the date of release, and will need to regularly provide personal details and report his whereabouts to police.[72] Consistent with the observations in Dr Sheridan's report, such measures provide a protective factor reducing the likelihood of further offending.
19. Having regard to Dr Sheridan's evidence the Minister contended that the Applicant should be found to present a moderate risk of reoffending. The Tribunal considers it is more consistent with Dr Sheridan's evidence to characterise that risk as being in the low to moderate range.
20. The Tribunal finds that there is a likelihood the Applicant will reoffend. The Tribunal considers that given the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend there would be a low tolerance for any such risk and that this carries weight against revoking the visa cancellation. However, it does not follow that risk is determinative of the application which must be weighed against all the primary and other considerations in determining whether there is another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The Applicant's conduct and offending was very serious. The nature of the harm which would be caused were he to reoffend is also very serious. The Tribunal considers there is a likelihood he will reoffend in a similar manner however that likelihood is lowered by the presence of substantial protective and deterrent factors. Noting the nature of the harm the Tribunal accepts there is a low tolerance for risk of offending of this kind and that the consideration of risk weighs against revocation.
2. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I find that this primary consideration weighs moderately against revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.[73]
2. The Applicant was convicted of an offence against his step granddaughter, which constitutes 'family violence' in Direction no. 110.[74] A lifetime restraining order was granted against the Applicant in respect of the same victim. The Applicant has not been convicted of any other offences that would constitute family violence.
3. The Applicant accepted the offence constituted family violence for the purposes of this consideration and must weigh against revocation. The Applicant submitted that his immediate family members and close friends were aware of his conviction and continued to support him.
4. The Minister submitted that, while the sentencing Judge noted that the Applicant had no prior criminal convictions and was 'prepared to treat the offending as being out of character',[75] given the seriousness of the offending, the consideration should weigh heavily against revocation.
5. While many of the considerations in par 8.2.(3) of Direction no. 110 do not apply to the family violence offence committed by the Applicant, for the reasons outlined earlier, the nature of the offence was very serious. In my view, given the nature of the offence, it can be no less so under this consideration. The offence was against a family member and has not only had a profound impact on her (as outlined in the sentencing remarks) but has had a broader impact on the Applicant's family which the evidence suggested has significantly fractured in the period following the charges.
6. However, there is no evidence of any other offences constituting family violence, including in evidence provided by family members who remain supportive of the Applicant.
7. As noted above in Dr Sheridan's report, the Applicant has not undertaken any rehabilitation in relation to the offending and given his psychological profile, and in particular his lack of insight, traditional interventions may be unlikely to be successful. Also as recorded in Dr Sheridan's report, the Applicant has demonstrated little insight or genuine remorse or victim empathy. This accords with the evidence before the Tribunal. Given Dr Sheridan's observation that the Applicant denies the conduct it could not be said he accepts responsibility for it and I do not accept that he does. However, he testified that he regretted his offending and I consider that he does regret the impact his conviction has had on his family members, in particular his wife. As Dr Sheridan noted, even factoring a lack of genuine insight the Applicant demonstrates an understanding of the significance of the consequences of conviction which would deter him from engaging in such behaviour in the future, even absent other protective factors.
8. There is evidence before the Tribunal to find that the Applicant has engaged in acts of family violence and that he has not undertaken any rehabilitation with respect to this. For the reasons detailed above, while there is a likelihood of reoffending there are protective and deterrent factors in place which reduce this risk.
9. I consider that this consideration carries moderate weight against revocation in the Applicant's case.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. I am required to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.[76] I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regarding to how long they have lived in Australia and the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[77]
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia when he was 34 years old and has lived here for over 44 years. He does not have any close family ties, friendships or social links to or in the United Kingdom. The Applicant submitted that since settling in Australia the Applicant has only returned to the United Kingdom once, in 1992, when his father passed away.[78] The Applicant has two older sisters who may still reside in the United Kingdom, but he has not had any contact with them for over 40 years and does not know whether they are still alive.[79]
3. I note there is one additional departure for a month in 1985 reflected in his movement record. It was not clear in the evidence where the Applicant went on this occasion, but no challenge was made to his contention he returned to the United Kingdom only once. While it is plausible an earlier visit was made I do not consider the discrepancy to be significant given the length of time which has passed since that departure.[80]
4. The Applicant identified his immediate family in Australia as:[81]
   • Mrs K, his wife;
   • Mr EJ, his older son;
   • Mr E, his younger son;
   • Mrs M, his stepdaughter;
   • Mr J, his stepson;
   • Ms LA, his granddaughter; and
   • Mr M, his grandson.
5. He also identified four minor step grandchildren and extended family with whom he is close, including his brother and sister-in-law and Miss K's mother, who would be impacted by the decision. At the hearing Mrs K gave evidence that the Applicant has another stepson, Mr C, though that the evidence was that they are not in contact. I note that the Applicant was charged with 'aggravated indecent dealing of child under 13' and the complainant was Mr C's stepson. The charge was ultimately dropped.
6. The Applicant submitted that his immediate family would be impacted by a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa. The Applicant submits that he has close relationship with a number of his family members, and I accept his evidence. The Applicant contended that his removal would also have an impact on his family members, given his advanced age and health conditions.[82]
7. The Minister accepted that there will be adverse impacts on members of the Applicant's immediate family if the Applicant's visa were to remain cancelled and conceded that this consideration should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation.
8. The Applicant contends that his wife, Mrs K, will be the most affected by my decision. The Applicant and Mrs K have been together for almost 30 years. Mrs K provided a statement, originally provided to the parole board, to the Department as part of the Applicant's revocation request,[83] as well as a statement to the Tribunal.[84] She also gave evidence at the hearing where she spoke to the strength of their relationship and the impact the Applicant's removal would have on her. Mrs K indicated if the Applicant is removed she will be torn between her need to support and care for him and the need to care for her elderly mother in Perth. She also expressed a concern about being separated from her children and grandchildren. I accept the Applicant's removal would have a significant impact on Mrs K and would cause her significant emotional distress either through separation from the Applicant or separation from her other immediate family members. It was submitted, and I accept, that this distress would be heightened if Mrs K does not relocate with the Applicant given his poor health.
9. With respect to his relationship with his children and stepchildren it appeared there are varying degrees of contact.
10. The Applicant was incarcerated at Karnet Prison Farm before being released and moved to Yongah Hill Detention Centre. The Applicant states that his stepson, Mr J, visited him at Karnet Prison Farm but he has not seen him since then. Prison visits history shows Mr J visited the Applicant in June, October and December 2024.[85] Mr J did not provide a statement to the Tribunal. I note that the Applicant's offence was committed against Miss L, one of Mr J's children.[86] The Applicant testified that Mr J and his new partner had a falling out with his wife and that this meant he had not had recent contact. He also testified he is not in contact with some of his family members including his stepson, Mr C, and his step granddaughter, Miss L, who was the victim of the offending.
11. The Applicant reports to have a close relationship with his children, Mr E and Mr EJ, and his stepdaughter, Mrs M.
12. The Applicant's stepdaughter, Mrs M, provided a statement to the Department as part of the Applicant's revocation request,[87] as well as a statement to the Tribunal.[88] Mrs M gave evidence at the hearing strongly supporting the Applicant and it is clear from her evidence and the material submitted that her family, including her two daughters, are close to the Applicant. She testified that the Applicant has been supportive of her since a young age and she considers him her father. There were also letters from Mrs M's daughters to the Applicant which the Tribunal considers demonstrate a close relationship with him in line with Mrs M's evidence. He is close to her daughters and the family will suffer significant emotional loss if he is removed. The Tribunal accepts they will be negatively impacted if the visa cancellation is not revoked, including because it would mean Mrs K may need to relocate to the UK to support the Applicant.
13. The Applicant notes that his older son, Mr EJ, visited him at Karnet Prison Farm in 2024, but it has been difficult for him to visit the Applicant as he lives a far distance from the prison and the detention centre.[89] Mr EJ provided a statement to the Tribunal in which he said that if the Applicant were removed it 'would destroy the beautiful family that he has with [Mrs K] and our family, especially the grandchildren who adore him and cannot wait to see him again'.[90] He notes Mrs K would be forced to choose whether to remain to care for her mother or go to the UK to care for the Applicant. He goes on to state:[91]

The impact this would have on me would be huge. We have always bonded and got on well just like a father and son should, we talk constantly on the phone, we catch up when I got up to Perth we stay with him and his beautiful wife. We have also been away together in our caravans on a few occasions. I do think that if my dad is deported this would be the last time I would see him alive as we are not in a place to go to the UK to visit as we have our own lives here in Australia so this is where dad needs to stay.

14. The Applicant's youngest son, Mr E, provided a statement to the Department as part of the Applicant's revocation request,[92] as well as a statement to the Tribunal.[93] Mr E stated that if his father remains he will have the support of his family and close friends but if removed they would not be able to accompany him and he would be alone.
15. Additional statements were provided from the Applicant's brother and sister-in-law, friends and former work colleagues. These statements support the Applicant remaining in Australia, attest to his close relationsip with his family and friends and to their own emotional loss should he be removed.[94]
16. The Tribunal notes the Applicant has lived in Australia for 44 years and there was evidence he was employed for a significant part of that time. There was evidence he was a valued employee, working until the age of 72, and I accept that he has made a positive contribution over a significant time through his employment.
17. I find that the Applicant has strong and long-standing ties to the community through his family, friends and employment history. He continues to have significant support from those connections.
18. I find the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include, in summary:[95]
   • the nature and duration of the relationship;
   • the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future;
   • the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, on the child;
   • the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the child;
   • whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
   • any known views of the child;
   • evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being exposed to family violence by the Applicant or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the Applicant; and
   • evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.
3. The Applicant identified the following children whose best interest is that the cancellation decision is revoked:
   • Miss O, step-granddaughter, daughter of Mrs M, 17 years old;
   • Miss A, step-granddaughter, daughter of Mrs M, 15 years old;
   • Mstr S, step-grandson, son of Mr J, 17 years old;
   • Miss K, step-granddaughter, daughter of Mr J, 12 years old.
4. I note that the Applicant's offence was committed against Miss L, another of Mr J's children.[96] There was evidence that the Applicant has 3 step grandchildren through Mr C with whom Mrs K testified there is no contact. As there was no evidence of current contact with these children, and no evidence that the decision would impact them, the Tribunal has not given further consideration to their best interests under this consideration.
5. The Applicant contended that it is in the best interests of his identified minor grandchildren that the cancellation is revoked, notwithstanding the Applicant does not play a parental role in their lives and that they are otherwise able to be cared for by their parents.
6. The Minister accepted that the best interests of these 4 grandchildren is for the applicant to remain in Australia, however contended that while it weighs in the Applicant's favour, it does not outweigh the other primary considerations weighing in favour of non-revocation. The Minister noted the relationship with the children is non-parental and there has been a substantial period of absence from the children's lives due to his incarceration. The Minister also contended that he would not necessarily play a positive role in the children's lives noting the serious nature of his offences and the fact Miss K was present at the time of the offence. The Minister also contended contact with the children could be maintained from the United Kingdom. The Minister ultimately submitted that the consideration should only be given minor weight in favour of revocation.[97]
7. As there was evidence before the Tribunal suggesting the children's living arrangements, personal profiles and needs may differ, the Tribunal has considered the interests of the children individually or together with their siblings, but separately to the extent there is evidence specific to their circumstances.[98]

1. Miss O and Miss A are the daughters of Mrs M, the Applicant's stepdaughter. They are 17 and 15 years old respectively. The Applicant's relationship with the children is non-parental, as a step grandparent.
2. The children live with their mother and father and both Mrs M and Mrs K's evidence was that they maintain close contact with Mrs K and with the Applicant.
3. Mrs M, the mother of Miss O and Miss A, gave a letter of support to the Tribunal in which she described the Applicant's impact on the lives of her children.[99] Mrs M reported that her daughters spoke to the Applicant on Facetime 3 to 4 times a week, and described him as a 'very supportive grandparent'. She stated that they have visited the Applicant several times in the detention centre, noting he was not permitted visits with children in prison. She gave strong evidence that she considered it is in the best interests of her daughters that the Applicant remain in Australia.
4. The Applicant provided the Tribunal with an undated letter from Miss O, addressed to the Applicant.[100] In Miss O's letter she states:

I love talking to you on the phone to and can't wait to see you very soon! ... > > Thank you for writing and we can definitely keep in touch, I will always make time for you. I love you so much and hope I can see you soon.

5. The Applicant provided an undated letter from Miss A, addressed to the Applicant.[101] In her letter she states:

Been a long time since I've seen you which is a shame but hey look at the positives 37 days until I can see you and give you a big hug and a fat sloppy kiss... > > ...You know you did nothing wrong, and we all know that, you are the most innocent person I have ever met and will always be to me. I don't know how to express how much I LOVE YOU and miss you.... > > So don't forget to call us every Thursday and of course other days. Remember I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH... > > Love you Poppy sooo much! > > Stay strong, keep going, count down is on 37 days. > > I LOVE YOU

6. Another letter from Miss A stated:[102]

Sorry Poppy I know I told you I'm done writing for today but there is one last thing you should know so basically... every night at 9 - 10 pm sometime between there, when I turn off my phone and get comfy I lay there and pray for you and that your visa will get approved, which I'm sure it will. So God is with you and us every step of the way xx > > I'm off for a shower and bed xx > > I LOVE YOU

7. I find that the letters demonstrate a close relationship with the Applicant and a desire on behalf of Miss O and Miss A to maintain that relationship with him present in their lives in Australia.
8. While Miss O is nearing 18 years old, her mother testifed this is a period of significant milestones for the family which she wants her children to share with the Applicant. Miss A is younger and there are several years remaining before she reaches adulthood during which time the Applicant could make a positive contribution to her life if he refrains from reoffending.
9. The Applicant has maintained contact with his Miss O and Miss A via by electronic means and in writing while in prison and detention. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest contact with his granddaughters could not be maintained by those means if the Applicant is in the United Kingdom. However, the Tribunal accepts this would not be a substitute for personal contact.
10. There was no evidence the Applicant's behaviour had negatively impacted Miss O or Miss A. Miss A makes references to the offence in her letter and it is clear she does not accept her grandfather committed the offence. This was consistent with the position taken by some other family members, including Mrs K.
11. Noting the children's expressed desire to see their grandfather and resume an in person relationship with him and Mrs M's view that the Applicant's ongoing presence in Australia would be in their best interests, I consider it would be in Miss A and Miss O's best interests that the cancellation be revoked. However, less weight would be afforded those interests given the non-parental nature of the relationships.

1. Miss K is the daughter of Mr J, the Applicant's stepson. The Applicant's relationship with Miss K is non-parental, as a step grandparent.
2. She is around 12 years old. She lives with her mother, Ms N and does not have contact with her father, Mr J. Miss K is the half-sister of the victim. The Tribunal understands from the sentencing remarks and the evidence of the family members that Miss K does not have contact with her sister. She was present at the time of the offence but was very young.
3. Ms N, mother of Miss K, remains in contact with the Applicant and Mrs K. Mrs K gave evidence that her granddaughter stays with her about one weekend a month and that they are in regular contact.
4. There were no known views of Miss K but Ms N gave a statement in which she states that her daughter is close to the Applicant. Concerning the impact of the Applicant's removal on her daughter she said:[103]

If [the Applicant] was removed from Australia, it would affect me because it would affect my daughter [Miss K] as she has a very close relationship with [the Applicant] and [Mrs K], his wife. My daughter [Miss K] has already endured a lot with abandonment issues stemming from her biological father. I fear losing a grandparent could have a negative impact on her and cause unnecessary emotional distress.

5. There was no evidence of the nature of any current contact between Miss K and the Applicant. However, the Tribunal accepts her mother's evidence that they remain close. Noting Miss K's age there are number of years remaining before she reaches adulthood during which time the Applicant could make a positive contribution to her life if he refrains from reoffending.
6. Noting the Applicant has maintained contact with his other grandchildren by electronic means and in writing while in prison and detention, there is no information before the Tribunal to suggest contact with Miss K could not be maintained by those means if the Applicant is in the United Kingdom. However, the Tribunal accepts this would not be a substitute for personal contact with her grandfather.
7. While Miss K was present at the time of the offence against her sister and her presence was an aggravating factor in that offence, there was no evidence the Applicant's behaviour had negatively impacted her, other than having resulted in a lack of contact with her sister. Noting her mother's letter of support I infer limits on contact with her sister are due to choices her mother has made with respect to that relationship. There was no evidence Miss K witnessed the offending or was otherwise aware of it, noting again that she was very young at the time of the offence.
8. Noting Ms N's view that the Applicant's ongoing presence in Australia would be in Miss K's best interests, I consider it would be in Miss K's best interest that the cancellation be revoked. However, less weight would be afforded to her best interests given the non-parental nature of the relationship.

1. Mstr S is the stepson of Mr J. The Tribunal understood he has a different mother to Mr J's two other children, Miss K and Miss L (the victim). He is 17 years old.
2. There was relatively limited information regarding Mstr S before me. While he was mentioned in the revocation request, the Applicant's statement supporting that request, and briefly in the ASFIC,[104] he was not mentioned by either the Applicant, Mrs K or Mrs L in evidence before the Tribunal. The lack of evidence about Mrst S was acknowledged by the Applicant's representative in closing submissions.
3. According to the limited material before me, Mstr S lives with his mother. The Applicant's relationship to Mstr S is non-parental, as a step grandparent.
4. There was no evidence of any current contact with Mstr S and his views were not known. Neither parent provided a statement. There was no evidence the Applicant's behaviour had negatively impacted Mstr S in the past.
5. Noting Mstr S's age and the fact the Applicant has maintained contact with his other grandchildren by electronic means and in writing while in prison and detention, there is no information before the Tribunal to suggest contact with Mstr S could not be maintained by those means if the Applicant is in the United Kingdom.
6. While there is very limited evidence on which to assess Mstr S's best interests, on the basis that the Applicant's removal would negatively impact his immediate family members and in particular his grandmother, and on the basis the Applicant's ongoing presence in Australia would facilitate contact with Mstr S should he seek it, I consider revocation of the cancellation decision would be in Mstr S's best interest, however, given the very limited nature of the evidence of an ongoing relationship I afford only slight weight to his best interests in this case.

Conclusion on best interest of minor children

1. The Tribunal finds that the best interests of Miss O, Miss A and Miss K weigh in favour of revocation. The best interests of Mstr S also weigh in favour of revocation but to a lesser extent given the very limited information regarding the relationship. Overall, this consideration weighs moderately in favour of the cancellation decision being revoked.

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that 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.
3. Direction no. 110 notes that 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 particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in sub-paras 8.5(2)(a)-(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in para 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered 'very seriously' or 'serious'. The Tribunal has found earlier that the Applicant has been convicted of an offence which is considered very serious applying these provisions.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated expectations apply, regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5. Direction no. 110 is clear that the expectation of the Australian community, with respect to the Applicant's offending, would be that he would not be permitted to remain in Australia. Accordingly, the expectation of the Australian community weighs against revocation.
6. However, it remains for the Tribunal to determine the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration.
7. The Minister contended that given the nature of the Applicant's offending involved sexual offences against a child, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa and that the consideration should weigh significantly against revocation.
8. The Applicant accepted that the expectations of the community would weigh against revocation but that this consideration would not outweigh others.
9. In applying weight to this consideration, the Tribunal is guided by the principles in para 5.2 of Direction no 110. Paragraph 5.2(2) states that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to para 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community. This is consistent with the terms of paragraph 8.5.
10. Paragraph 5.2(6), however, expresses the principle that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct to a person who has lived in the community for most of their life or from a very young age. The Tribunal considers this is a principle has limited relevance in the Applicant's circumstances given he arrived as an adult, albeit he has now lived here now for the majority of his 83 years. In any event, given the very serious nature of the offence, the Tribunal considers very little in the way of tolerance for such offending would be extended by the community.
11. The Applicant has engaged in conduct raising very serious character concerns. I find the community would expect that the Applicant's visa would remain cancelled. Accordingly, the expectation of the Australian community weighs strongly against revocation.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

a) legal consequences of the decision;

b) extent of impediments if removed;

d) impact on Australian business interests

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. I am required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[105]
2. While this consideration in Direction no. 110 refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of its decision.[106] The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:
   • Unlawful status;
   • The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[107]
   • Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[108]
   • A prohibition on applying for other visas;[109] and
   • Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply. This includes permanent exclusions where SRC5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person.[110]
3. Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[111] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, an Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[112]
4. The Applicant raised no concerns regarding return to the United Kingdom other than those relating to his separation from family and friends in Australia, the difficulty he would face resettling due to his health issues and problems connecting to the significant health supports he requires. In the Tribunal's view, on the information before it, the Applicant's circumstances are not such as would suggest a non-refoulement claim arises with respect to his return to United Kingdom.
5. In submissions the Applicant contended that due to ill health he may be unable travel to the United Kingdom and that this might result in him being mandatorily detained indefinitely. The Minister contended there was no evidence to support a finding that the Applicant was unfit to fly and in closing submissions the Applicant conceded there was no medical evidence directly supporting this contention.
6. In my view there was insufficient evidence to support a finding the Applicant would be determined unfit to travel and consequently face the prospect of ongoing detention. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's indefinite detention is either a practical or legal consequence of this decision.
7. I accept that, as a consequence of the cancellation of his visa, the Applicant will be barred from applying for any other Australian visa other than a Bridging R (Subclass 070) visa (BVR).[113] The Applicant may also be subject to permanent exclusions from Australia as he may not be able to meet Special Return Criteria 5001(c).
8. While detention, removal and visa limitations which result from a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa are an intended consequence of the operation of s 501 and related provisions I consider that the impact these consequences, and, in particular, the impact permanent exclusion would have on the Applicant weigh slightly in favour of revocation in the Applicant's case.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in their home country, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. 'Home country' has a clear meaning in the Migration Regulations.[114] The matters identified under sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:
   • The Applicant's age and health;
   • Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
   • Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.
2. The Applicant was born in the United Kingdom and resettled in Australia over 44 years ago. He is now 83 years old.
3. The Applicant concedes that he does not face any substantial language or cultural barriers if removed but contended that his age and physical health would present significant impediments if removed.
4. The evidence before the Tribunal, including medical records and reports and the evidence of the Applicant, Mrs K and Mrs M, established that the Applicant suffers from the following medical conditions:

(a) Grade 4 Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL); > > (b) Hypogammaglobulinemia; > > (c) Pneumocystitis Pneumonia (PCP) caused by the fungus pneumocystitis jirovecii; > > (d) Ischaemic Heart Disease requiring a stent and regular heart medication; > > (e) Osteoporosis resulting in a total right hip replacement and requiring ongoing injections treat low bone density; and > > (f) Chronic cough and asthma, treated with inhalers, and chronic fatigue; > > (g) Facial skin cancer, treated with imiquimod cream.

5. Further, the Applicant used bilateral hearing aids prior to his incarceration.
6. The Applicant provided a report from Dr Norcott, dated 16 February 2023, which stated:[115]

(a) The Applicant's leukemia treatment has 'left him with an impaired immune system' and recorded that he previously developed sepsis, as a result of which he was in ICU for 2 days and was treated as an inpatient for 27 days. The Applicant had a diagnosis of hypogammaglobulinemia in 2019 and has received monthly immunoglobulin injections to book his low immunity. Dr Norcott noted that these injections require hospital admission and without the infusions he is at severe risk of further sepsis. Evidence before the Tribunal was that those infusions have continued in prison and detention to support the Applicant's immune system. > > (b) The Applicant has contracted an opportunistic lunch infection with pneumocystitis jirovecii as a result of his impaired immune system, and that this infection had been treated but not cured and would need to remain on lifelong antibiotics. > > (c) The Applicant has a face-to-face haematology review assessment each 3 months. > > (d) The Applicant has a 'continuing blood cancer diagnosis which is in remission with a high risk of relapse'. > > (e) The Applicant is at high risk of untreated relapse without access to close monitoring.

7. The Applicant contended that while he would have access to health care and government supports in the United Kingdom, relocation itself would place him at serious risk of deterioration both due to the stress of relocation and due to the disruption of his ongoing clinical care. The Applicant requires substantial ongoing care and establishing clinical care of this kind in another country would present a challenge which he would struggle to navigate in the absence of any familial or social supports.
8. The Minister contended the Applicant would have access to a similar level of medical care and support in the United Kingdom as he would in Australia.[116] The Minister accepted there may be impediments to the Applicant being able to establish himself and maintain basic living standards in the UK but submitted these would likely be in the main emotional impacts due to separation from his family.
9. I accept the Applicant will have access to a similar level of government and medical support in the UK and that he may have the support of his wife who appeared to contemplate returning with him to care for him. However, I note the Applicant has longstanding care arrangements in Australia with specialist clinicians who manage his complex medical conditions. Reestablishing those arrangements would present a challenge for the Applicant and for maintaining his health, at least in the period of transition. I consider in the Applicant's case this would amount to a significant impediment if removed.
10. In addition, I find the Applicant's advanced age when combined with his ill health would be a significant impediment if removed. As an elderly man the Applicant would face additional challenges in establishing social networks in the UK, navigating access to services and physically establishing a new home in the UK.
11. I also accept the Applicant and his family members will suffer significant emotional distress if he is removed. This would be the case even if his wife returns with him as her own separation from her family will cause her emotional hardship which the Applicant acknowledged he would bear responsibility. I accept the impact of moving to the United Kingdom with the Applicant to support him would be a significant strain on Mrs K and that this may impact her own mental health and capacity to support her husband to overcome the impediments he faces if removed.
12. I find that extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed weigh strongly in favour of revocation in the Applicant's circumstances.

1. There is no evidence of any impact of the decision on an Australian business interest, including one which would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.[117]
2. The Tribunal considers this consideration should be afforded neutral weight in the Applicant's case.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act.
2. I have therefore considered whether there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110.
3. Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
4. I am required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether it is ultimately satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. [118]
5. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. I have gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether the cancellation decision should be revoked.
6. I have considered all of the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community. I find that the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation and I afford the consideration moderate weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
7. The consideration of family violence was relevant in the Applicant's case and I find it also carries moderate weight against revocation in the Applicant's circumstances.
8. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revocation.
9. The best interests of the minor children impacted by the decision weigh in favour of revocation and carry moderate weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
10. The expectations of the Australian community weigh against revocation and I find this consideration should be afforded strong weight in the Applicant's case.
11. In relation to the relevant 'other considerations' identified in Direction no. 110, I find that the legal consequences of the decision weigh slightly in favour of revocation. The extent of impediments if removed weigh strongly in favour of revocation.
12. The impact on Australian business interests carries neutral weight.
13. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further, it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. In this case there are primary considerations weighing both for and against revoking the visa cancellation.
14. The considerations in the Applicant's case are finely balanced. His offending is undoubtably very serious and the protection of the community weighs against revocation. The Australian community would expect his visa would remain cancelled. Weighed against this he has very strong ties to this country and faces significant impediments if removed, including due to his advanced age and ill health.
15. Having considered all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the factors weighing in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, including the primary considerations of the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor grandchildren and the extent of impediments he faces if removed, outweigh those weighing against revocation in the Applicant's case.
16. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110, I am satisfied that in the Applicant's case there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 18 June 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BF (Permanent) Transitional visa under s 501CA(4) is set aside and substituted with the decision that the cancellation of visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding 203 (two hundred and three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S Burford

............................[sgd].........................................

[2] At the time of the hearing the Applicant was 82. At the time of writing the decision the Applicant has turned 83.

[4] By operation of law, under the Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994 (Cth); R1, 108. This visa permits a person to remain in Australia indefinitely.

[12] See s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.

[13] Migration Act s 501CA(3).

[14] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].

[15] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).

[16] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at 685 [63].

[19] See Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).

[20] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

[21] FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990 at [63] (Thawley J); Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456 (Halley J) at [119].

[22] Migration Act s 499(2A).

[25] Direction no. 110 para 6 referring to paras 8 and 9.

[28] RSFIC, pages 150-157, pages 411-417.

[30] See also Direction no. 110 para 8(1).

[33] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a).

[34] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).

[38] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b).

[43] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).

[45] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f).

[46] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(g) and (h).

[47] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a) and (b).

[48] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, at [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, at [41] per Kenny J.

[49] RRRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471.

[50] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).

[53] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(b).

[56] See R1, pages 443 - 444 for example.

[60] ASFIC at [47] citing L. Maaike Helmus et al, 'Strengths, limitations, predictive accuracy meta-analysis and legal admissibility review' (2022) 28(3) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 307, 309.

[71] Donald Ritchie, 'Sentencing Matters: Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence' (2011) Sentencing Advisory Council . See also Kate Obrien and Michael Daffern, 'Treatment Gain in Violent Offenders: The Relationship Between Proximal Outcomes, Risk Reduction and Violent Recidivism' (2017) 24(2) Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 244, 254 ; Leigh Harkins et al, 'Relationships Between Denial, Risk, and Recidivism in Sexual Offenders' (2014) 44(1) Archive of Sexual Behaviour 1, 13-14 .

[72] Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (WA) s 46.

[74] Direction no. 110, para 4(1)(b), 8.2.

[94] See R1, pages 172, 175, 177, 179, 182 and 443.

[95] Direction no. 110 para 8.4(4)(a)-(h).

[106] Direction no.110, cl 9(1)(a) and cl 9.1.

[107] Migration Act ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[108] Migration Act s 501F.

[109] Migration Act s 501E.

[110] Migration Act s 503; Migration Regulations cl 5001 special return criteria (SRC).

[111] Migration Act s 15.

[112] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305 to find the applicant's detention had at all times been lawful at [112]-[122].

[113] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 2.25AB.

[114] Migration Regulations reg 1.03.

[116] Citing Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 831 at [100].

[118] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35]. See also Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591