1. The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:

(a) whether the Applicant passes the 'character test,' as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and, if not, > > (b) whether there is 'another reason' why the Visa Cancellation Decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

1. Section 501CA of the Migration Act relevantly provides:

(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

...

(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied:

(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. The 'character test' is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, a person will not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record': s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.
2. The phrase 'substantial criminal record' is defined in s 501(7) of the Act and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
3. Pursuant to s 501(3A)(a)(i) and (b) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', because they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory. That is, failure of the 'character test', in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, arises as a matter of law.[2]

1. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must:

(a) give the person concerned written notice of the decision which sets out the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a)(i) of the Migration Act; > > (b) give the person concerned particulars of the relevant information: s 501CA(3)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act; and > > (c) invite the person to make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act.

2. Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original (visa cancellation) decision if:

(a) representations have been made by the applicant in accordance with an invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied that: > > > (i) the person passes the 'character test' in s 501(6) of the Migration Act: s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; or, if not, > > > > (ii) there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

3. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (i.e. to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa) involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the original decision.[3]
4. The Tribunal is required to undertake a 'weighing and balancing' exercise, weighing up the relevant considerations in Direction 110 and the Applicant's representations against one another to come to the correct or preferable decision.[4]
5. The Tribunal (decision-maker) must then ask itself whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the visa cancellation.[5] In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021) at [22], the High Court described s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke the mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (here, the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked. In Plaintiff M1/2021, the majority held (at [22]) that the assessment of whether there is, in fact, 'another reason' is to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[6]

1. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, must be made in accordance with any written directions under the Migration Act: s 499(2A) of the Migration Act.
2. Relevantly, the Tribunal must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, providing a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[7] However, as stated by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582 at [23] and [81], the principles enunciated by Brennan J in Drake (No 2), and subsequent cases concerning the Tribunal's ability to depart from governmental policy, remain applicable.[8]

1. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act.
2. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 are as follows:

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

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must take into account the five 'primary considerations' in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
2. The five 'primary considerations', in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence: paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia: paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia: paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community: paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must also take into account the three 'other considerations', in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, insofar as they are relevant.
2. The three 'other considerations', in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, include, but are not limited to, the:

(a) legal consequences of the decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Migration Act: paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed: paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests: paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110.

1. Section 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1....(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

(emphasis added)

1. On 12 July 2024, the Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation of his Resident Return Visa 'by hand', which is the method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations): HB225-HB230. The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to him: reg 2.55(5) of the Migration Regulations.
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the cancellation. As stated above, on 23 August 2024, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Resident Return Visa, being within the prescribed 28-day period: HB118-HB163. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation, as required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. It is not in dispute, and the Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it, that the Applicant does not pass the 'character test,' because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act, as he has a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. This is because, on 24 May 2024, the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia of Manufacture a prohibited drug, under s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months: HB78.

1. It follows that the sole issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether there is 'another reason' why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked:

s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act. 2. This involves an evaluative process requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the cancellation, and an assessment and evaluation of those factors leading to the formation of a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked.[9] 3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked: s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act. 4. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal, informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, has, as set out below, 'taken into account':

(a) the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110); and > > (b) the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110).

FIRST PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT (PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority

1. In applying paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must be informed by the eight 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and outlined at [23] above.
2. Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 states:

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

3. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' is also stated as a 'priority' in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.
4. Direction 110 was made on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaced Direction 99 which did not contain the principle that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government'. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' of the Australian Government, and in the application of Direction 110 by decision-makers, is reflected in the media release, published on 7 June 2024 by the Minister, Hon Andrew Giles MP (who authored both Directions 99 and 110), announcing Direction 110 as follows:[10]

Today, I have signed Ministerial Direction 110, a new, revised Direction to strengthen the consideration of community safety in Australia's migration system. > > Since coming to office, the Government has refused and cancelled a large number of visas on character grounds in the interests of community safety. > > However, it is clear the AAT has made a number of decisions independently of Government that do not reflect the Government's intent or meet community expectations. > > Since the beginning of last week, I have cancelled 40 visas in the national interest. > > Today, we take the next step in strengthening our cancellation system to better reflect community expectations. > > Ministerial Direction 110 is guided by two key principles; the protection of the Australian community and common sense. > > This new revised Direction makes crystal clear that the Government expects the protection of the Australian community be given greater weight in visa decisions. > > .... > > The revised Direction makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the Government's highest priority - and includes this as a key principle of the decision-making framework. > > .... > > Ministerial Direction 110 is an important step in ensuring that our migration system works in our national interest, and visa decisions are in line with common sense and the safety of Australians. > > Community safety is and always will be our Government's highest priority. > > (emphasis added)

5. Accordingly, the phrase 'safety of the Australian community', in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 and the first 'primary consideration' in paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 (Protection of the Australian community) is directed at the 'risk' posed by a non-citizen to the safety of the Australian nation should they be granted a visa. It is not directed at the potential consequences for a segment of the Australian community (such as the non-citizen's family members) should the visa not be granted or restored. The Tribunal must assess whether a non-citizen's continued presence in Australia would 'be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation'.[11]

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 states that, when considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers must consider the:

(a) nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110; and > > (b) risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 provides:

a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > i. violent and/or sexual crimes; > > ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children;

1. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

1. It is clear from the use of the words 'without limiting the range of conduct that may be viewed as very serious', in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110, that the types of crimes or conduct that may be 'very serious' is not exhaustive and may include drug-related offending and driving/traffic offences of the kind committed by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant's history of offending in Australia is set out in Annexure A, attached to this Statement of Reasons.
3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's 'criminal offending and other conduct to date' to be 'very serious' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.[12]

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's Index Offending as 'very serious' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.
2. On 24 May 2024, the Applicant was convicted of the following offences (Index Offending), for which he received a total sentence of 20 months of imprisonment:
   • Cultivate a Prohibited Plant - sentenced to 1 month imprisonment (concurrent);
   • Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant - sentenced to 1 month imprisonment (concurrent);
   • Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis) - sentenced to 3 months imprisonment (concurrent);
   • Manufacture a prohibited drug (Dimethyltryptamine/DMT) - sentenced to 20 months imprisonment (concurrent); and
   • Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine) - sentenced to 1 month imprisonment (concurrent): HB78.
3. The circumstances of the Applicant's Index Offending are described by the sentencing judge (Petrusa DCJ) in the sentencing remarks, as follows:

...the police were lawfully intercepting your mobile phone between 7 September 2020 and 13 October 2020. As a result of a number of the phone calls and a road stop that occurred on 13 September 2020, police executed a search warrant at your home...When searching your bedroom, police located items associated with drug possession and manufacture.

Police located a total of 236.02 grams of cannabis in two different locations, albeit 228 grams of this was waste material. They also located two clipseal bags that contained 2.74 grams and 0.72 grams of DMT. These respectively had purities of 92 per cent and 94 per cent. Police located what it is submitted by the State to be a tick list on the top of a desk on an envelope. You dispute that this is a tick list.

This document also had GPS coordinates written on the back with the notation, "Bullfinch" on it. Police subsequently attended the GPS location and determined it was an area of heavy bushland. This area is said to have acacia trees which are a raw material used in the manufacture of DMT. Police also located a mobile phone, which when downloaded was found to contain a 31-page PDF document entitled "The DMT Handbook 201208.pdf".

There was also a photograph of you in the rear shed of the property with a crystalline substance in a glass dish near to you. The metadata indicates this photo was created on 11 August 2020. This is consistent with you having manufactured DMT a month earlier. In your car, police located a Bunnings receipt for the purchase of Shellite and caustic soda, filter papers that had a white powder on them which tested positive for DMT, a plastic container of water and 0.68 kilograms of bark.

In the rear shed, police located a total of 26.17 grams of cannabis. This was in various locations. They also located two glass smoking implements, three cannabis seedlings in a grow tent and 23 cannabis seeds. There were also various clipseal bags that contained a substance which, when tested, was found to be DMT. Two clipseal bags containing, respectively, 0.95 grams and 0.13 grams of DMT were located.

In addition, the following equipment associated with manufacture of drugs was located, namely: glass jars and containers, blenders, Pyrex dishes, plastic cups, measuring jugs, gloves, buckets, mirror gas burner and ans LPG cylinder, a carafe, a turkey baster, electric shredder, filter papers and a putty knife, two precursors, plant and bark material, three reagents and solvents like Shellite, sodium hydroxide or caustic soda, vinegar and acetone and dimethyltryptamine were also located: HB83-HB84.

1. As submitted by the Respondent, the Applicant's Index Offending demonstrates a high level of intent and sophistication, noting the various manufacturing materials, equipment and handbook located in the Applicant's possession: HB14 at [22].
2. The high level of intent and sophistication of the Applicant's drug manufacturing is reflected in the following sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge:

Now, DMT is a hallucinogenic drug that is produced either by chemical synthesis or through extraction from plant material in which it occurs naturally. DMT can be found in acacias, such as Australian wattles. The drug is extracted from the plant which is finely divided or chopped or shredded, providing a greater surface area in order to extract it. It's then soaked in a suitable liquid or solvent which can be manipulated to purify and concentrate the DMT using acids and alkalines such as caustic soda and Shellite, both of which were found in the shed: HB83-HB84.

1. The Applicant submits that the DMT he was manufacturing was for personal use only. However, for the following reasons, the sentencing judge did not accept his submissions:

...It is submitted that the DMT you were manufacturing was for personal use only.

I do not, however, accept that you were manufacturing purely for personal uses. I accept that a review of your phone did not reveal any messages consistent with supplying DMT, albeit there are a couple of messages, perhaps consistent with supplying drugs.

There is, however, a photograph on your phone consistent with you having manufactured a not insubstantial amount that month earlier. You have also had additional bark at the property, some 4.1 grams, which could, if you were successful in extracting all of the DMT, produced a further 20 grams of DMT.

Further, you were in company with [Ms CS], both when stopped by police on 13 September and when you were going to bushland and at Bunnings to buy supplies, and when police executed the warrant. You also communicated with a friend on 14 September who understood your reference to doing "the tree thing" to be manufacturing dimethyltryptamine, which is what the CCTV footage from your home confirms.

So people knew what you were doing and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could, had they felt willing, to ask you to supply some. Now, this doesn't aggravate your situation, but simply to highlight that I do not accept your contention in the way that it does: HB84-HB85.

1. The Tribunal's position on whether the Applicant was manufacturing the DMT for personal use (as he submits) or for commercial gain (as the sentencing judge suggests) is set out later in these reasons at [81] and [82].

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the nature and 'seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending to date, the Tribunal must have regard to 'the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes', noting that, when reviewing the Minister's decision whether there is 'another reason' to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may not impugn or 'go behind' either the conviction or the sentence.[13]
2. The imposition of a custodial sentence must be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved.[14] The objective 'seriousness' of the Applicant's Index Offending is reflected by the sentence imposed by the Court, being a term of imprisonment of 20 months.
3. Incarceration is the penalty of last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[15] As such, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's sentence for a term of imprisonment of 20 months, for the Index Offending, is indicative of the seriousness of the offending.
4. To this end, the sentencing judge found that the seriousness of the Index Offending was such that:

...only a term of immediate imprisonment is appropriate. I have come to this conclusion after having very carefully considered the circumstances of the offence, and the work that you have done towards your rehabilitation, and the effects that sending you to prison may have upon your [mental health] treatment: HB90.

Frequency of offending and trend of increasing seriousness

1. The Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, as set out in Annexure A to this Statement of Reasons, has been frequent, commencing in March 1998, only 3 years after relocating Australia, on 19 December 1995, aged 17. It also demonstrates a trend of increasing seriousness: paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110.
2. The nature, frequency and trend of increasing seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date also demonstrate a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community, which is 'the highest priority of the Australian government': paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.
3. Over a twenty-seven-year period, the Applicant has been found guilty of 35 offences: HB78-HB79 and Annexure A.
4. The Applicant's first serious offence or conduct occurred on 3 July 1998, when he was convicted of Robbery in Company and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years: HB79.
5. As noted by the Respondent, the Applicant's offending history also includes the following:

(a) On 30 August 2001, the applicant was stopped by police regarding the manner of his driving, which revealed that he did not hold a valid driver's license due to expiry, and the applicant had 0.75 grams of cannabis in his jeans pocket (S1, 11).

(b) On 15 March 2003, the applicant was pulled over while driving and police found 2 grams of cannabis in his car (S1, 16). Similarly, on 29 March 2003, the applicant was pulled over while driving and the police found approximately 1 gram of cannabis and 0.62 grams of methamphetamine in his car (S1, 19). On 30 October 2004, the applicant's car was stopped by police for speeding during which the police located 7 grams of cannabis and a smoking utensil (S1, 22). On 11 April 2009 and 8 March 2012, the applicant was pulled over while driving and police located small amounts of methamphetamine on him (S1, 29-31). On 12 February 2017, the applicant was searched by police at a car park and found to possess two small bags of methamphetamine (S1, 37). On two occasions, 12 October 2019 and 31 March 2020 respectively, the applicant was pulled over while driving and his oral fluid test tested positive for methamphetamine (S1, 46-47).

(c) On 1 February 2005, the applicant entered into a bail undertaking to appear before the Court on 4 February 2005 and breached this undertaking by failing to appear on that day or any day thereafter. On 7 March 2005 he was pulled over by police while driving and explained that he has a medical certificate for the day but subsequently did not attend the Court following expiration of the medical certificate (S1, 27)

(d) On 28 September 2007, the applicant was pulled over while driving and it was ascertained he was not the holder of a valid driver's licence (S1, 28). The applicant also drove without a valid driving licence on 21 November 2017 (S1, 41).

(e) On 24 May 2014, the applicant was stopped for a licence check while driving and it was ascertained he was not authorised to drive until 1 November 2014 as his licence had been suspended. The applicant's explanation was 'I know I have no license but I wanted to go to the pharmacy' (S1, 33).

(f) On 15 September 2020, the police searched the applicant's property and found approximately 65 grams of cannabis and a hydroponic 'grow tent' containing 3 cannabis plants. The cannabis plants were being grown inside a sophisticated hydroponic grow tent, complete with ventilation, lighting, fans and exhaust ducting (S1, 53-54). The police also found 5.30 grams of DMT and evidence of DMT manufacturing, including various items that could be used in the extraction of DMT from plant material, and items that could be used in supplying such as numerous unused clip seal bags, vacuum sealing packaging, operational digital weights and a ledger recording drug debts (S1, 51).

(g) On 29 December 2022, the applicant was located 'slumped over' in the driver's seat of a car. Police completed a search of the car and located a black backpack owned by the applicant which contained two clip seal bags containing methamphetamine, a glass smoking implement and a machete (S1, 57).

(h) On 20 April 2024, the applicant had suffered a suspected overdose or medical episode, resulting in him being located slumped over his registered motorbike. During a search of his jumper, the police located a clip seal bag containing 3.41 grams of methamphetamine and $2,290. The applicant was taken to the hospital for further medical treatment, three days after which he attended the police station and was arrested (S1, 61): HB15-HB16.

1. The Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending is 'very serious' and has resulted in a significant use of police and court resources. Put differently, a wicked waste of taxpayer funds/resources that could have better served the Australian community in a positive and meaningful way, such as building hospitals and schools: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110.

1. The Applicant's driving/traffic offences are also relevant to a consideration of the first primary consideration, 'Protection of the Australian community', in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110. The Tribunal has repeatedly observed the seriousness of driving offences.[16]
2. Overall, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's driving/traffic offences as 'very serious' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.
3. During the period from 2001 to 2020, the Applicant was convicted of a significant number of driving/traffic offences, including the following:
   • No driver's licence (one conviction);
   • No authority to drive - suspended (three convictions);
   • Used an unlicensed vehicle (one conviction); and
   • Driving with prescribed illicit drug (two convictions): HB78-HB79.
4. The sentences the Applicant received for the driving/traffic offences were fines and periods of licence disqualifications: HB78-HB79.
5. The Applicant's significant number of driving/traffic offences over a sustained period demonstrate a persistent disregard for Australian law, authority, and the safety of the Australian community (especially other road users), which is 'the highest priority of the Australian Government': paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110. Importantly, driving whilst under the influence of illicit drugs has the potential to result in injury to the Applicant but other members of the Australian community, noting that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

Conclusion: Nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, and as informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date to be 'very serious': paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, weighs heavily against revocation.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal must also consider the 'risk' to the Australian community, should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. Some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be 'unacceptable': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
2. In assessing the 'risk' posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have 'regard to', cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110; and > > (b) the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (i) information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and > > > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community, if any, since his most recent offence: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

3. The concept of 'risk' and whether it is 'unacceptable', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110, is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110.[17]
4. Direction 110 directs the Tribunal's 'risk' assessment by expressly stating that, informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the:

(a) Australian Government is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens': paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110; > > (b) Australian Government views that certain types of conduct may be considered by it and the Australian community as 'very serious' and 'serious': paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110; and > > (c) Australian Government's view is that 'the Australian community's tolerance of any further risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

5. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 (Tanielu), Justice Mortimer (as her Honour then was) said (at [103]):

It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like. > > (emphasis added)

6. Accordingly, the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by Direction 110 is not just 'any' risk that a non-citizen may 'commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct', but is aimed at the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of harm said to exist in the circumstances of the Applicant's case. There is no statutory constraint on the way the Tribunal is to assess that risk, other than the requirement for the Tribunal to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[18]

Nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant was ever convicted of selling or supplying illicit drugs of any kind or, importantly, that he manufactured DMT for commercial gain. Rather, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant was convicted of, among other things, possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia for his personal use only. In relation to the Index Offending, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant was manufacturing DMT for his personal use only and not for sale/supply and commercial gain, despite the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge to the contrary (which are, just that, remarks): see [56] above.
2. As submitted by the Applicant, it was open to the State of Western Australia to charge the Applicant under s 7(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (i.e. an offence relating to the 'supply' of prohibited drugs), in relation to the Index Offending, if they believed that the Applicant was manufacturing prohibited drugs for a commercial purpose, but they did not: HB6 at [56]. Instead, as stated above, the State charged the Applicant, in relation to the Index Offending, under s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) for the offence of Manufacture a prohibited drug, for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months.
3. The Applicant has consistently contended that he manufactured the DMT for personal use (and not for commercial gain) and did so, in part, to 'connect' with his deceased father: HB185. In the Pre-Sentence Psychological Report of Dr Phil Watts, Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology of Mindstate Psychology Pty Ltd, dated 28 April 2023 (Pre-Sentence Psychological Report), Dr Watts reports on his discussion with the Applicant regarding his reasons for manufacturing DMT as follows:
   1. I noted in talking to Mr Steer that his father passed away suddenly when he was 22...Mr Steer said that he was profoundly affected by it...

1. ...He...explained that the only reason he got into drug manufacture was that it was easier than buying drugs for himself. He claims his intention was not to sell and supply, but only for personal use.

1. ...Mr Steer has been a long-term drug user. When looking at the nature of the drug use, he appeared to have been largely a recreational user up until the passing of his father, after which his drug use escalated markedly. This is quite common in grief situations. Subsequent to that time he had many years of heavy use...
2. Mr Steer indicated that after he gave up methamphetamine injections, he was looking for other things which could help his experiences. Therefore he was interested in psychedelic drugs [i.e. DMT].
3. He further indicated that he could finance the drugs through money he got through the Family Trust, but essentially he tried manufacturing his own substance for his own use. He said he got instructions how to do it online, and then set-about how to implement it...

1. 31. Mr Steer set about making his own [DMT]. He said he watched a You-Tube video and then set-about doing it for the purpose of his own consumption. He was interested in the psychedelic experience. He further indicated that in that experience one can feel spiritual-type experiences, and he found that he could feel a connection with his [deceased] father when he was doing drugs...:HB183-185.
2. The Tribunal considers that the following sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge appropriately describe the nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community, of the Applicant's Index Offending:

Dimethyltryptamine is a hallucinogenic drug. It's not a common drug, although I have dealt with persons who have made this drug in the past. It is significant considerations of this kind that manufacturing an illicit substance can put people in the vicinity at risk. That is, the participants and members of the public.

Now, the process involved in the manufacture of DMT may not be as inherently dangerous as other processes like the manufacture of methylamphetamine, but nonetheless, there is - as I have had the experience of witnessing in the past - risks associated with the manufacture.

The gravamen of this offence, though, is also the bringing of the drug into existence. And in this case, you've manufactured at least 11 grams, and this is not the first time you've manufactured this drug, and it would appear, given the presence of dry bark, it may not have been the last.

The State haven't sought to prove that you were manufacturing for personal gain, but it is clear you had invested both equipment and time into this enterprise, and you were manufacturing in a suburban area, so whilst the risk may have been less than the manufacture of methylamphetamine, there remained still a risk to those nearby, and that risk included to your mother: HB90.

1. In relation to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community, the Minister submits that any reoffending by the Applicant would have the potential to cause physical, financial, and/or psychological injury to members of the Australian community and that further drug offences would expose the Australian community to harm arising from the commercialisation and consumption of illicit drugs: HB17 at [33]. As stated above, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has even been involved in, or convicted of, the sale or supply of (i.e. the commercialisation of) any illicit drugs. Rather, his drug-related offending, including the Index Offending, involves his own personal consumption of illicit drugs. Accordingly, the Respondent's submission, and the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge are, respectfully, not borne out of the evidence.
2. Ordinarily, individuals who consume illicit drugs for personal use begin selling or supplying illicit drugs to fund their own habit. However, this is not so for the Applicant. The Applicant was able to finance his drug use through a combination of work and financial support from his father's estate: HB184. This eliminates the typical financial motivation for drug-related crime that many individuals with substance dependence face and obviates the need for him to manufacture DMT for commercial purposes. In any event, nothing ultimately turns on this point as the State chose to charge the Applicant, in relation to the Index Offending, with Manufacture a prohibited drug [i.e. DMT] under s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), rather than for the supply of DMT under s 7(1) if the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).
3. That is not to say that that there are no costs to the Australian community associated with a person consuming illicit drugs for personal use. In Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2158 at [52], the Tribunal described the impact of illicit drug use on the Australian community, albeit in the context of the sale or supply of illicit drugs (which, as stated above, does not apply in this case), as follows:

As well, there is a quantifiable cost to the community both in terms of an increased imposition on (1) the public health system to cope with the physical and psychological consequences of these substances in our community; and (2) resources to be allocated to law enforcement agencies to detect and apprehend the wrongdoers and the justice system to hear and adjudicate offences arising from this activity.

1. In the transcript of proceedings relating to the Applicant's drug-related offending on 27 July 2023, and, in particular, Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine), Magistrate Young makes the following apt remarks regarding the impact of illicit drug users (as opposed to illicit drug suppliers) on the Australian community:

Nor should you think it's a victimless offence, Mr Steer, because whenever you acquire drugs, presumably it's by way of buying it from somebody, and that person - so the whole cycle of supply and demand. So obviously drug dealers need people to sell to, and that keeps them in business, and then they sell to other people...

And the person selling the drugs doesn't really care whether the person they're selling it to has got the money from robbing someone or from actual employment. In other words, you're a small part of a much bigger problem in that regard, in feeding the ongoing supply of drugs...: HB536.

1. There can be no doubt that the Applicant's driving/traffic convictions, including, in particular, Driving with prescribed illicit drug, should such conduct be repeated, have the potential to cause catastrophic physical harm (including the possibility of death) and financial and/or psychological harm to members of the Australian community. However, for the reasons provided below, under the heading 'Likelihood of non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', the Tribunal considers that, based on the evidence before it, the Applicant's risk of reoffending in this manner is 'low' and acceptable.
2. The Respondent contends, in relation to the harm to individuals or the Australian community, that the harm that could be caused by the Applicant's conduct, if it were to be repeated, is so serious, that any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable: HB17 at [34]. For the reasons provided below, under the heading 'Likelihood of non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', the Tribunal rejects this submission.

Likelihood of non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant is, overall, at a 'low' risk of reoffending and that the risk is an acceptable one.
2. In a 'Private & Confidential Psychological Report' by Donna Stambulich, Clinical Psycholgist at North Perth Psychology Centre (Ms Stambulich), dated 21 March 2024 (Stambulich March 2024 Psychological Report), Ms Stambulich reports that the Applicant first attended her rooms on 13 June 2023 on the recommendation of Dr Watts, who completed the Pre-Sentence Psychological Report, for an 'opinion and management of [the Applicant's] long standing problematic substance abuse/misuse and complex mental health issues': HB196.
3. In the Stambulich March 2024 Psychological Report, Ms Stambulich reports that when the Applicant first presented at Ms Stambulich's rooms, on 13 June 2023, she assessed the Applicant for his suitability for the Recode-me (Drug and Alcohol) Program (Recode-me Program). Ms Stambulich describes the Recode-me Program, in that report, as follows:

The [Recode-me] Program is an intensive evidence-based outpatient drug and alcohol program. Elements of the program include but are not limited to the following;

• Initial assessment including referral for medical treatment and detox if needed
• Individual Treatment Planning and case formulation
• Psycho-education on AOD eg; patterns of using, process of change, relapse prevention etc
• I:1 intensive counselling twice weekly including clinical psychology
• Daily 24/7 Phone support
• Core modules include: Emotional Regulation, RE-wire CBT and ACT, RE-focus (Mindfulness) and RE-connect (Process and Topic Group): HB196.

1. In the Pre-Sentence Psychological Report, Dr Watts described the Applicant as presenting as if 'drugs have fried his brain' (HB182 at [8]), resulting in 'someone who would like to have relationships but struggles, has a strong narcissistic element to his personality and would worry excessively about things which are not overly important': HB184 at [28].
2. Further, Dr Watts reports the following about the Applicant's capacity for change:

...There is some evidence that he is trying to change. He does have the capability to change, but many years of his dysfunctional lifestyle will make it tricky for him, especially if he does it without mental health support: HB185 at [34].

1. The Tribunal considers that the above comments of Dr Watts' and, in particular, the comment that 'drugs have fried [the Applicant's] brain', must be viewed in context. That is, they must be considered in the light of the fact that at the time of the Pre-Sentence Psychological Report, Dr Watts was seemingly unaware that the Applicant had untreated Hepatitis C (HCV), presumably from years of intravenous drug use, resulting in cognitive impairment which has since been rectified through treatment.
2. In a letter, dated 24 March 2024, Ms Stambulich, describes the effects of HCV, on cognitive impairment, as follows:

The term "brain fog" refers to cognitive impairment experienced by individuals suffering from HCV. This term encompasses a range of cognitive problems, including difficulties with memory, concentration, attention, and executive functioning, which significantly impact an individual's ability to function effectively in various domains of life, including work, relationships, and daily activities.

When individuals with HCV experience brain fog, they may exhibit symptoms such as memory deficits. This can manifest in difficulties remembering recent events, names, or details of conversations, leading to problems with short-term memory recall: HB190.

1. The Applicant subsequently commenced Interferon Therapy for the treatment of his HCV, Ms Stambulich assessed the Applicant as a suitable candidate for the Recode-me Program and offered him a place in the program, commencing 25 March 2024: HB197. In this regard, in the Stambulich March 2024 Psychological Report, Ms Stambulich reports:

Mr Steer has started Interferon Therapy for the treatment of his HCV. It is a 3-month treatment and Mr Steer tells me that he is two thirds of the way through. He has explained that he no longer feels fatigued and has better cognitive clarity and that the "brain fog" has lifted and reports decreased levels of anxiety and depression... > > It is imperative that Mr Steer completes his Interferon Treatment Therapy to gain the long term physical and psychological benefits to clear the HCV from his system. > > ... > > I now assess Mr Steer as a suitable candidate for the Recode-me Program and offer him a spot in the program. Ms Steer would be able to start on Monday 25 March 2024: HB197.

2. The above comments, of Dr Watts, were referred to and adopted by the sentencing judge in the sentencing remarks: HB87-HB88. However, the sentencing judge, who was made aware of the Applicant's HCV, and his consultation with Ms Stambulich, made the following sentencing remarks regarding the Applicant's treatment for HCV and his rehabilitation:

Since obtaining Dr Watts' report in April of 2023, you've consulted clinical psychologist, Donna Stambulich. This is said to demonstrate your recent commitment to dealing with your drug issues.

You initially consulted her on 13 June last year. She considered you an appropriate candidate for the Recode-me program and recommended that you address some medial issues, most significantly your Hepatitis C.

...this is something you have now dealt with. You commenced Interform treatment therapy to address hepatitis C and completed this in March of this year.

It is submitted that the treatment for the hepatitis C has had the effect of clearing the brain fog associated with this disease...It is submitted that this will make your...participation in the Recode-me program more effective.

Now, you did commence the Recode-me program after you were before me last and I have received a report from Ms Stambulich about your performance on that program since then...She reports that you have engaged well and have been actively participating in the program.

In her opinion, you have made meaningful strides in your recovery journey...You will however, she says, require continued support and monitoring to sustain and build on these gains.

I accept therefore, that you have shown commitment to being drug free and that there are good reasons to be optimistic about your prospects of rehabilitation. That said, there is still a lot more work to be done: HB89.

1. In a letter from Ms Stambulich to Micheal Perrella of Perrella Legal, dated 22 May 2024, Ms Stambulich reports on the Applicant's progress in the Recode-me Program, as follows:

Mr Steer made contact on the 26th March 2024 to commence the Recode-me Program. His attendance is summarised as follows: April 4, 8, 15, 19, 22, 26, 29; May 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, 20...2024.

On occasion Mr Steer has either rescheduled or cancelled appointments either due to illness or other concerns but did always remain in phone contact and notify of his absences. In addition to these face to face sessions Mr Steer did consistently utilise the 24/7 support and called in multiple times when struggling with withdrawal, craving or low mood.

In summary, Mr. Steer has made some meaningful strides in his recovery journey. While he has experienced lapses, his overall engagement, honesty and positive lifestyle changes are strong indicators of his commitment to overcoming addiction. Continued support and monitoring will be essential to sustain and build upon these gains and Mr Steer has indicated that he hopes he has the opportunity to finish the program and continue with his recovery journey: HB193-HB194.

1. In a more recent 'Clinical Psychology Treatment Report and Progress Summary' by Ms Stambulich, dated August 2025 (Stambulich August 2025 Psychological Report), Ms Stambulich reports that the Applicant has engaged in regular psychological treatment (specifically, in the 'Recode Me Program') in the 26 month period from 13 June 2023 to 7 August 2025 with two qualified practitioners at her centre, completing 15 clinical sessions in that 26 month period: HB201.
2. In the Stambulich August 2025 Psychological Report, Ms Stambulich reports the following in relation to the Applicant's 'Personal Accountability and Insight', 'Rehabilitation Commitment' and 'Psychological Development':

Throughout our treatment relationship, Mr Steer has consistently demonstrated:

• Genuine acceptance of responsibility for his criminal behaviour
• Clear understanding that addiction does not excuse illegal activities
• Demonstrated remorse regarding the impact of his actions on family and community
• Self-initiated exploration of underlaying addiction triggers and behavioural patterns

• Voluntary participation in institutional rehabilitation programs beyond court-mandated requirements
• Exemplary behavioural record during incarceration period
• Proactive engagement with addiction counselling services
• Sustained motivation for personal development and behavioural change

• Enhanced capacity for self-reflection and honest self-assessment
• Development of accountability frameworks and responsibility measures
• Improved understanding of addiction as a complex behavioural health issue
• Integration of coping strategies for trigger management: HB201-HB202.

1. In the Stambulich August 2025 Psychological Report, Ms Stambulich provides the following comments on the Applicant's 'Risk assessment and Protective Factors':

• Strong therapeutic alliance: Consistent engagement with multiple practitioners
• Insight development: Clear understanding of addiction triggers and consequences
• Voluntary participation: Self-initiated engagement in rehabilitation programs
• Community awareness: Recognition of impact on family and broader community

• Continued psychological support: Ongoing engagement with clinical serves
• Addiction counselling: Specialised treatment for substance use disorders
• Community integration planning: Structured approach to reintegration
• Trigger management: Developed awareness and coping strategies: HB202.

1. In the Stambulich August 2025 Psychological Report, Ms Stambulich provides the following 'Professional Assessment' and 'Clinical Conclusion' of the Applicant:

From a psychological perspective, Mr Steer presents as a client who has genuinely engaged with the therapeutic process and demonstrated meaningful behavioural change. His consistent attendance despite challenging circumstances (detention, legal proceedings, logistical barriers) indicates authentic commitment to rehabilitation rather than mere compliance with external requirements.

1. Authentic remorse and accountability - not defensive or blame-shifting

1. Sustained engagement - 26-month treatment relationship across multiple life circumstances
2. Behavioural consistency - alignment between stated values and observed conduct

4. Future-focused planning - genuine motivation for community contribution

Mr. Steer has demonstrated genuine rehabilitation through consistent therapeutic engagement, behavioural change, and development of personal accountability. His 26-month treatment history supports a favourable prognosis for successful community reintegration when couples with continued psychological support: HB202-HB203.

1. For the purpose of this review application, the Applicant provided the Tribunal with an (expert) 'Psychological Assessment Report', by Dr Lorraine Sheridan, Psychologist, with forensic endorsement, dated 17 November 2025 (Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report).
2. Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report is relevant, in particular, to the Tribunal's assessment of the Applicant's 'risk' to the Australian community. The key points, on the Applicant's 'risk' to the Australian community, in Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report, are, in summary, as follows:

1. I considered the use of structured risk assessment instruments to aid my assessment of Mr Steer's reoffending risk. It is the case that standard forensic risk tools, which focus on physical violence, sexual offending, or general criminality, were not appropriately normed or designed for assessing drug-related offending risk. Instead, I have employed a structured professional judgment approach, systematically considering static risk factors, dynamic risk factors, protective factors, and risk management needs specific to substance-related offending.
   1. Mr Steer presents with a number of static (unchangeable) risk factors for reoffending. These include: An extensive criminal history spanning 26 years, a pattern of regular reconviction, multiple prior sanctions, poor responses to prior sanctions, long-term substance dependence, and early age of first offending.
   2. Dynamic (changeable) factors and protective factors include the following:

- Age: At 47 years of age, Mr Steer is at a life stage where criminal recidivism naturally decreases.

- Sustained abstinence: Mr Steer reports sustained abstinence from all illicit substances since he was incarcerated. This is the longest period of sustained abstinence in his adult life. While this abstinence has occurred in controlled environments (prison and detention), it nevertheless represents a significant behavioral change. Mr Steer said during our interview that he has been offered drugs whilst in prison and detention.

- Consistent Treatment Engagement: Mr Steer has maintained consistent engagement with psychological treatment with Ms Stambulich. This represents unprecedented treatment compliance for him and suggests genuine motivation for change.

- Lifestyle changes: Mr Steer reported that he has made substantial changes to his physical health, fitness, diet, and sleep patterns. He said he has lost 40kg and significantly increased his fitness level. These changes have become integrated into his identity and provide structure and positive focus.

- Social network changes: Mr Steer said he has deliberately distanced himself from drug-using peers and has developed new prosocial relationships.

- Insight and awareness: Mr Steer demonstrates improved insight into the factors that contributed to his substance use and offending. He was able to articulate clear understanding of his patterns, triggers, and the need for ongoing vigilance.

- Strong motivation: Mr Steer's motivation for change appears strong and is well-integrated with his personality structure.

- Concrete support systems: Mr Steer has multiple concrete supports including his mother, a close friendship with a man (Harley) he sees as a mentor, employment prospects, psychological treatment continuation, and financial stability.

- Remorse and victim awareness: Mr Steer expressed what I would consider to be genuine remorse. He demonstrates awareness of how his actions have negatively affected others.

1. Balancing the static risk factors against dynamic risk and protective factors, it is my opinion that Mr Steer's risk of serious reoffending (such as drug manufacturing) is low if he is released to the community with appropriate conditions, monitoring, and treatment in place. This assessment is based on his age, sustained behavioural changes, strong protective factors, and the serious consequences he has experienced which appear to have provided genuine deterrence.
2. I am of the view that Mr Steer's risk of less serious drug-related reoffending (such as drug possession or use) is moderate, particularly in the early period following release. Despite his sustained abstinence and strong motivation, his lengthy history of dependence and his previous pattern of relapse create ongoing vulnerability. This risk would be highest in the first 6-12 months following release and would decrease with sustained abstinence and continued treatment engagement.

1. Mr Steer's risk to community safety is assessed as low, provided appropriate conditions and monitoring are in place. The index offence (drug manufacturing) did pose risks to community safety due to the hazardous nature of the process and the residential location. However, his risk of similar offending appears reduced given his current insight, motivation, and the severe consequences he has experienced.

2. Several factors will be critical for managing Mr Steer's risk effectively, and these include:

Ongoing drug screening, providing both monitoring and deterrence.

Continued psychological treatment. Ongoing engagement with psychological treatment is crucial for maintaining Mr Steer's insight, motivation, and coping skills. I would recommend individual psychological therapy at least weekly for the first 6-12 months, then reducing frequency based on progress. Treatment should focus on relapse prevention, emotional regulation, processing grief and loss, and addressing any emerging difficulties. Engagement in peer support programs would provide community support, role modeling, and accountability.

Employment Maintenance: Stable employment provides structure, purpose, and greater financial security, all of which are protective against relapse.

Monitoring and compliance: Regular reporting requirements and compliance monitoring will be important for early detection of any concerning changes in Mr Steer's presentation or circumstances.

1. Mr Steer's risk of reoffending could increase significantly if he experiences certain circumstances. These include the death of his mother, although he does appear to have improved his understanding and processing of grief. Instability associated with loss of employment could remove important protective factors and increase stress. Any resumption of contact with his previous drug-using social network would dramatically increase risk of relapse and reoffending. During our interview, Mr Steer said firmly that he will avoid association with drug users, but would enthusiastically support any former associates who are dedicated to personal positive change and stopping drug use. Disengagement from psychological treatment would remove a critical protective factor and suggest declining motivation or emerging difficulties. Other significant stressors such as relationship breakdown, financial problems, or health issues could potentially trigger relapse if Mr Steer's coping skills are insufficient. Positively, I note that Ms Stambulich reported that Mr Steer consistently used her phone support service and called in multiple times when he was struggling: HB501-HB503.

1. In Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report, Dr Sheridan reports the following describes the effect incarceration has had on the Applicant's relationship with illicit drugs, as follows:
   1. During our interview, Mr Steer said that being incarcerated was "the best thing that ever happened to me". He said that the idea of drug use now "disgusts" him and that he "quivers" when thinking about using illicit substances again. He said that in the past he made excuses for himself and lived a "putrid" and self-serving lifestyle, where he felt no need to make changes. Mr Steer said that being forced to stop taking drugs has radically changed his life for the better and that he has replaced drugs with routine, healthy habits, and rigorous exercise...: HB503.
2. Dr Sheridan appeared (virtually) and gave evidence regarding the Applicant's 'risk'. Dr Sheridan was cross-examined on various aspects of her report. Relevantly, Dr Sheridan told the Tribunal that the 'ideal scenario' for the Applicant, if he is released into the community, is that he maintain regular contact with Ms Stambulich as a protective factor. If he does this, Dr Sheridan considers that the Applicant is at a 'low' risk of reoffending. Dr Sheridan said that she knows Ms Stambulich personally and that she is 'fierce' at 'maintaining the rules'. Dr Sheridan described the Applicant's 'low' risk of reoffending as being 'significantly attached' to ongoing counselling. Dr Sheridan that if the Applicant does not maintain regular contact with Ms Stambulich, if he is released into the community, his risk increases to 'moderate'.
3. Dr Sheridan told the Tribunal that she had discussed the Applicant's desire to work as a SMART Recovery facilitator, if released, and that she thinks this is a good idea. She said that the Applicant is the type of person that needs something to focus on and provide him with a sense of purpose, which that would. She described the Applicant as seeming 'genuine' in his desire to maintain sobriety and that, in her view, he has a 'decent chance of maintaining sobriety', if released. Dr Sheridan said that, in her view, if the Applicant were to relapse it would happen in the first six to twelve months of him being released and that it would be a 'semi-functional' relapse, but that he would not return to extreme illicit drug use and/or manufacturing.
4. Dr Sheridan said that her assessment of the Applicant's cognitive function was that he was fully cognitive and that Dr Watts' assessment of the Applicant, in the Pre-Sentence Psychological Report, as being cognitively impaired was not because of his drug use but, rather, because he had untreated HCV at a that time. Dr Sheridan described the Applicant as having rational and sound decision-making capability and to be of 'above average' intelligence. Dr Sheridan also stated the Applicant was able to 'identify his own pitfalls' and did not seek to rationalise his past offending. She described the Applicant as having 'matured' and that she did not anticipate him being involved in offending akin to his Index Offending in the future. She said that the Applicant was older, no longer reckless and that he demonstrated genuine shame, disgust and remorse for his offending. At the conclusion of her oral evidence before the Tribunal, Dr Sheridan confirmed her assessment of the Applicant's risk as being 'low'.
5. The Applicant has also participated in numerous online SMART Recovery Australia courses (ranging from 60 to 90 minutes in length) whilst in immigration detention, including on 6 August 2025, 25 September 2025, 26 September 2025, 27 September 2025, 28 September 2025, 29 September 2025, 1 October 2025, 2 October 2025, 3 October 2025, 6 October 2025, 7 October 2025, 8 October 2025, 9 October 2025, 10 October 2025, 12 October 2025, 14 October 2025, 15 October 2025, 16 October 2025, 17 October 2025, 21 October 2025, 23 October 2025, 27 October 2025, 28 October 2025, 29 October 2025, 4 November 2025, 9 November 2025, 20 November 2025, 21 November 2025, 23 November 2025: HB275-HB347.
6. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that, as a result of his SMART Recovery sessions, he has formulated a 'relapse plan' involving a 'cost/benefit analysis' concerning drug use (i.e. the merits and demerits of drug use) and a list of motivations not to relapse, he referred to this as his 'relapse toolkit'.
7. The Applicant describes his comprehensive rehabilitation in an undated letter, provided to the Department in support of his revocation request, as follows:

3. Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Exemplary Conduct During Incarceration

My journey of rehabilitation commenced with Re-Code Me prior to my incarceration, during which time I actively participated in six weeks of their 12-week Individually Developed Program...Following the completion of my ten-month sentence, I promptly re-established contact with the program and remain steadfastly committed to completing the full course.

The support provided by Donna and Jenny has been instrumental in navigating significant personal challenges particularly in the wake of my father's passing. Their invaluable guidance has equipped me with healthier coping mechanisms as I have learned to process the complexities associated with his extraordinary success and the pressures I felt living in his shadow.

During my time in custody, I dedicated myself fully to personal transformation, My disciplinary record remained flawless, and I proactively sought every opportunity for rehabilitation and self-growth. A cornerstone of this commitment was my voluntary and consistent participation in the Narcotics Anonymous (NA) program, which proved critical to my ongoing recovery. NA provided not only essential structure and accountability but also a vital supportive community of individuals who shared similar struggles, fostering a sense of belonging and aiding my journey toward sustained sobriety.

Throughout my incarceration, my conduct was consistently characterised by discipline, accountability, and a sincere dedication to positive change. I was entrusted with significant responsibilities, which I embraced as tangible opportunities to demonstrate my progress and earn the trust of both correctional staff and fellow inmates. At Acacia Prison, I served as Leading Hand in the kitchen, a role that involved managing workflow, ensuring stringent hygiene standards, and mentoring newly incarcerated individuals. Subsequently, at Wooroloo Prison, I was appointed Head Cleaner, a position demanding initiative, dependability, and a strong work ethic. These roles were not merely symbolic; they were a direct reflection of the trust I had earned through consistent, positive conduct and a genuine commitment to rehabilitation.

4. Profound Physical and Mental Transformation

At the time of my sentencing, my weight was 118 kilograms [which] was indicative of both poor physical health and significant emotional distress. My active participation in rehabilitation programs has brought to light the strong and undeniable connection between physical well-being and mental clarity. Over the course of ten months, through unwavering discipline and a commitment to daily exercise, I reduced my weight to a healthier 81.3 kilograms. The physical transformation is not merely a change in appearance but a tangible and outward manifestation of the profound internal changes I have undergone - a renewed commitment to a healthy, balanced lifestyle grounded in mindfulness, responsibility, and self-care: HB160-HB161.

1. In a more recent 'Statement', dated 3 November 2025, the Applicant describes his rehabilitation, whilst in immigration detention, as follows:

I have been in immigration detention since March 2025. In immigration detention I have continued my rehabilitation by regularly engaging with the SMART Recovery program which gives me the tools to avoid drugs in immigration detention.

In immigration detention I see drugs all the time. In detention I am constantly offered both cannabis and alcohol. I have refused these offerings immediately and without hesitation. I do not have any urges to use drugs as I [have] been consistent in my SMART Recovery sessions.

I am disgusted by drugs. I do not want anything to do with them they ruined my life.

I have taken my detention seriously. I have worked hard at my rehabilitation. I have been consistent in my SMART Recovery program and will continue to be consistent in any and all counselling I may require: HB353.

1. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he is a changed man, he is disgusted by his past addiction and offending, his 86 year old mother 'means the world' to him, she needs his support (he described himself as a 'Mumma's boy') and that his deportation would be devasting for his mother and it would 'kill her'. In relation to his Index Offending, the Applicant said that he did not appreciate at the time of the offending, whereby he manufactured DMT at the home where he was living with his mother at the time, that he was endangering her. The Applicant said that, at the time of his Index Offending, his mother was unaware that he was manufacturing DMT on the premises and that if she had have known she would have intervened and tried to stop him and help him.
2. In relation to his driving/traffic offending, the Applicant told the Tribunal that, when this offending occurred, he had a 'juvenile' attitude towards breaking the law and driving/traffic offending. He thought paying the fine was enough. He now realises that the right to drive is a 'privilege' and that 'getting behind the wheel' whilst on drugs is extremely careless and irresponsible and could result in killing someone.
3. The Respondent relies on, among other things, the most recent Parole Review Report on the Applicant, dated 21 January 2025, which was performed when the Applicant was still incarcerated at Wooroloo Prison Farm (January 2025 Parole Review Report) (HB473-HB479), and the fact the writer of the January 2025 Parole Review Report recommended the Applicant be 'denied' parole (which he is eligible for on 23 January 2026), in support of the contention that the Applicant continues to pose an 'unacceptable risk to the Australian community', if released: HB18 at [39].
4. In this regard, the Parole Review Report states:

...Mr Steer has had an ongoing association with drugs over a sustained period of time and although he suggests that he is attending NA and AA "to get some additional perspectives from fellow inmates", there is no supporting evidence available to confirm his attendance. The writer also notes that Mr Steer was also processing a prohibited drug at the proposed release address with his elderly, unwell mother and possibly his goddaughter living in or accessing the property.'

Taking into consideration the extensive criminal history of this 46 year old individual and the escalation in his current offending behaviour into processing and cultivating drugs, the writer feels that Mr Steer would pose more than a minimal risk to the safety of the community and his family if released at this time. Due to Mr Steers offending history, the writer recommends that Parole be denied: HB478.

1. In the absence of a more recent Parole Review Report in evidence before the Tribunal (it now being December 2025, some 12 months after the January 2025 Parole Review Report was prepared) and in circumstances where it was decided, on 23 March 2025 (not long after the January 2025 Parole Review Report was prepared), that the Applicant be released from Wooroloo Prison Farm (a 'minimum' security prison) into immigration detention at Yongah Hill Detention Centre, the Tribunal places little weight on the comments of the writer of the January 2025 Parole Review Report that the Applicant poses 'more than a minimal risk to the safety of the community and his family' and that he ought to be denied parole. Further, although the writer of the January 2025 Parole Review Report mentions the Applicant's rehabilitation efforts as being limited to attending NA and AA. In the report, there is no mention made of the Applicant's other rehabilitation efforts including, in particular, his participation in the Recode-me Program since 13 June 2023 and the many online SMART Recovery Australia sessions he has since completed whilst in immigration detention. In other words, the report does not accurately reflect the Applicant's rehabilitation efforts at the time it was written or since.
2. Further, the Respondent contends the following in relation to the Applicant's 'Risk to the Australian community':
   1. The Minister agrees with the parole report and submits that given the applicant's history of entrenched substance abuse and decades of reliance on drugs to cope with issues, and the nature of his offending, the applicant's ability to stay drug-free in the community remains untested and the Tribunal cannot have any confidence that he will not once again cease treatment and return to drug use and criminality should he find himself in difficult personal or financial circumstances. The applicant's claimed rehabilitation and reflection since entering prison and detention is recent and untested in an unsupervised environment. Whilst it may be accepted that the applicant has had some ability to illegally access drugs in prison and immigration detention, it must be accepted that the applicant would have the ability to freely access and consume drugs in the community. The Minister highlights that while the applicant is now taking steps to overcome his decades long addiction, the evidence suggests he requires ongoing support and monitoring to sustain any improvement he has made, and should he cease psychological treatment upon release, his risk of relapse is significant. In this regard, the Minister submits the Tribunal must have regard to the applicant's rehabilitation as at the time of the decision and the applicant continues to present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii) of Direction 110): HB19.

1. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal and, in particular, the recent reports from clinical psychologists concerning the Applicant's rehabilitation efforts and risk to the Australian community, the Tribunal does not accept the Respondent's contention that the Applicant 'continues to present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.' Specifically, the Tribunal relies on the various reports of Ms Stambulich, the Applicant's treating clinical psychologist since 13 June 2023, and Dr Sheridan's 'Risk Assessment' of the Applicant, as set out in Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Report, and Dr Sheridan's oral evidence at the hearing.
2. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's family (especially his mother) ought not be considered a protective factor regarding 'risk' when they were available to him at the time he offended. For the following reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that contention.
3. In a supporting letter from the Applicant's mother, Ann Steer (Mrs Steer), dated 21 October 2025, Mrs Steer states the following in relation to the Applicant's rehabilitation whilst incarcerated:

I have visited Paul whilst he was Hakea, Acacia and Wooroloo Prisons and also at the Detention Centre and have witnessed a gradual change in his attitude and outlook on life. Paul is now fully focused on turning his life around. He has given up smoking and is dedicated to daily work-outs at the gym, as can be evidenced by his weight loss over 30 kilos since his incarceration. He is attending meetings and courses on-line and doing everything he can to help himself go forward: HB348.

1. In a more recent supporting letter from the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, dated 24 November 2025, Mrs Steer refers to the fact that, prior to commencing the Recode-me Program, he did attend counselling for his drug use at Palmerston Association but he got 'absolutely nothing from the meetings'. Mrs Steer describes the positive impact the Recode-me Program, and incarceration, has had on to the Applicant as follows:

I went with Paul from time to time to counselling sessions at Palmerston but he seemed to get absolutely nothing from the meetings.

I can remember one day in particular when I telephoned a councillor at the [Palmerston] Drug Centre, being told that quite frankly, until Paul reached rock bottom and wanted to help himself, there was very little anyone could do to help him.

Just prior to his incarceration, Paul started drug counselling sessions with Re-code Me and had an instant rapport with Donna and Jenny. He looked forward to the meetings and has stayed in touch with them. I know Paul wants to continue the counselling sessions as soon as he is able.

From what I've witnessed over a period of time, I firmly believe that incarceration has done its job. I haven't seen Paul looking so fit and healthy for such a log time. He is no longer living in the moment but focusing on the future and turning his life around: Exhibit 3.

1. In a letter dated 18 March 2024, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, states:

Paul has really struggled with losing his father at an early age...David passed away at a time when Paul, being a young adult, needed his guidance and support the most. David was the role model, and beacon to Paul's aspirations and after his passing, Paul was navigating through both his grief, and his life without direction.

I have spoken to Paul at length about his offending, and I have come to understand from Paul that, although inexcusable, Paul's motivation was spiritual in that he perceived DMT as a means to connect and communicate with his father. Paul has since been attending counselling and through this process, I have seen a change in his attitude an behaviour, such that he has accepted responsibility, and is truly remorseful, for his misguided actions.

I will continue to support Paul through this journey of healing and recover, and I truly hope for him to find forgiveness for himself and those he cherishes the most...:HB165-HB166.

1. In a Statutory Declaration, dated 10 September 2024, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, states:

50. I believe that Paul wants to change for the better.

1. I am willing to support Paul emotionally and financially whilst he takes steps to rehabilitate and stay away from drugs.

52. I can provide him with love, a good home and family support.

1. I believe that Paul will have great family support in ensuing he does not turn to drugs again: HB170.
2. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, told the Tribunal that prior to his incarceration the Applicant mainly lived with her, except for some periods when he lived elsewhere because he was in a relationship. Mrs Steer said that she was aware of the Applicant's drug use when he was living with her and did everything she could to help him with his drug addiction, including attending some of the Palmerston sessions with him, which proved unhelpful for him. Mrs Steer said that she had many discussions and arguments with the Applicant over many years about his drug use and tried many times to point him in the right direction.
3. Mrs Steer said she has witnessed 'huge changes' in the Applicant since his incarceration. She has visited him in Hakea Prison, Acacia Prison, Wooroloo Prison Farm and in immigration detention and they talk on the phone twice a day (in the morning and the evening) and that the Applicant 'keeps her going'.
4. Mrs Steer told the Tribunal that, if released into the community, he will live with her. Mrs Steer said that, in her opinion, the Applicant will not reoffend because of his changed attitude, he is focused on fitness and the future. He realises the mistakes he has made and turned his life around. Mrs Steer said that the Applicant is also different now because he has had his Hepatitis C treated. She said the Applicant lived with Hepatitis C for a long time untreated and that he would lay in bed for days at a time and the only thing that would 'get him back on his feet' was taking drugs, but all that is behind him now. She said that she gardened to deal with the grief of the loss of her husband (the Applicant's father), but the Applicant dealt with his grief over the loss of his father by taking drugs.
5. When asked what she would do if the Applicant is released into the community, lives with her and relapses, Mrs Steer said she would take completely different steps to help the Applicant, than she has done in the past. She said that, if the Applicant relapses, she will immediately contact the police and Ms Stambulich (clinical psychologist). Mrs Steer described what has happened since the Applicant's incarceration for the Index Offending as a 'huge learning curve' for her. Previously, she did not want to know anything about drugs.
6. In a supporting letter from Harley McLean, dated 13 November 2025, an All Round Plant Operator in the construction industry, who met the Applicant about two years before his incarceration, states the following in relation to the Applicant's rehabilitation and risk to the Australian community:
   1. Since Paul's incarceration, he has grown a lot, and he is taking all the steps to change and become a strong minded and loving person. He is very open with sharing his journey with me about his old life and how this time away from his mother, he feels ashamed and regrets that he brought to his mother and people around him.
   2. I have visited Paul in detention when I am able to and have seen changes in him. He is determined to become a loving son and friend that can be there for you. I talk regularly on the phone to Paul and I strongly believe he is on a good path to recovery.
   3. Paul is an awesome human being and has a lot to offer...
   4. I give my full support to Paul Steer and strongly believe in the person he is becoming. He has shown me so much growth since I have known him. He poses no risk to the community and will have my support in his journey to become a good member of the community and to help others in their journey: HB509-HB510.

1. In the evidence before the Tribunal, there are several letters offering the Applicant employment and support if he is released into the community: HB507 and HB509-HB510.
2. Further, in his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that, if released, he would like to work as a SMART Recovery Australia 'Facilitator' and that he has commenced 'Facilitator' training whilst in immigration detention. He said that, as a result of attending at least 30 (online) SMART Recovery meetings, whilst in immigration detention, he has found his 'calling' and wants to host/run SMART Recovery meetings, for all the immigration detention centres, if released. He said he wants to build his life around rehabilitation and helping other people rehabilitate and achieve their ambitions and goals.
3. The Applicant said that, if released, he would resume his Re-code Me sessions with Ms Stambulich, surround himself with the help he needs and 'stay solid and grounded'. When asked in cross-examination what has changed, the Applicant's response was that he had changed and before his incarceration he took everything for granted and only cared about himself but he is not that person now. If released, he will structure his life around work, health and his family. The Applicant said that drugs absolutely ruined his life, that they 'disgust' him now and are not in his 'DNA'.

Conclusion - Risk to the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. The overall evidence before the Tribunal supports the conclusion that the Applicant represents a 'low' risk to the Australian community of 'very serious' reoffending (such as the Index Offending) and a 'moderate' risk of less serious drug-related offending (such as illicit drug possession or use) but, for the above reasons, his overall risk is an acceptable one.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the 'risk' to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in further 'very serious' conduct, carries limited to moderate weight in favour of revocation: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

Conclusion: Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering: (i) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date; and (ii) the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1. of Direction 110, weighs moderately against revocation, noting that the safety of the 'Australian community' is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.

SECOND PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: WHETHER THE CONDUCT ENGAGED IN CONSTITUTED FAMILY VIOLENCE (PARAGRAPH 8.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Government has 'serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of... remaining in Australia'. This consideration is relevant both in circumstances where there has been a conviction of a 'family violence' offence, and where there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that there has been the perpetration of 'family violence': paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110.[19]
2. Direction 110 defines that 'family violence' means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. The definition also includes examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence: paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110. As noted by Senior Member Kirk in Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792:
   1. The Tribunal has consistently found that family violence is abhorrent. It has been described as a corrosive blight on the Australian community'', 'plainly abhorrent and an offence which warps and destroys the healthy bonds that should exist between partners and within families...
3. The Respondent contends that the Western Australian Police 'Statement of Material Facts', dated 1 February 2005 (produced under summons), record the following acts of 'family violence' (as defined in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110) perpetrated by the Applicant on 27 December 2004:
   • On 27 December 2004, it was reported that the Applicant and his friend went to the Applicant's ex-girlfriend's (victim's) house after meeting at a nightclub earlier that night. At around 7:00 am, while others were in the front room, the Applicant called the victim into her bedroom, closed the door, and accused her of disrespecting him;
   • The victim made several attempts to walk around the Applicant and leave the bedroom but he repeatedly stepped in front of her and stood in her way. The victim again tried to get past the Applicant, and he pushed her backwards into a wardrobe;
   • The victim screamed out to her friends for assistance at which point the Applicant placed his hand over the victim's mouth and pushed her head back into the wall at the back of the wardrobe. The victim tried to stand up and tried to call out for help several times, in response to which the Applicant kept his hand over her mouth and did not allow her to stand up;
   • The Applicant continuously told the victim she should show him more respect. The victim was restrained inside the wardrobe for approximately two to three minutes before she stood up and managed to push past the Applicant;
   • The Applicant then grabbed hold of the victim's right arm and pulled her down onto the bed. The Applicant laid on top of the victim and again put his hand over her mouth as she screamed out for help. The Applicant pinned the victim down, grabbed her face with both hands and pushed it down into the bed, and bit her right wrist hard enough to leave a large, visible bite mark. The victim fought back, ripping a chain from the Applicant's neck before he eventually stopped and left the premises; and
   • As a result of the incident, the victim sustained bruising on her right upper arm, left forearm, bridge of her nose, and forehead and had a significant bite mark on her right wrist: HB385-HB386.
4. On 1 February 2005, the Applicant admitted to the offences during a videotaped police interview and was arrested and charged with Deprivation of Liberty and Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm: HB385-HB386. The Applicant was not ultimately convicted for this offence: paragraph 8.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.
5. However, according to the Respondent, the contemporaneous records of the Western Australian Police, as set out in the 'Statement of Material Facts', dated 1 February 2025 (summarised above), record that the Applicant was 'involved in the perpetration of family violence' for the purpose of paragraph 8.2(2)(b) of Direction 110. That is, the incident involved behaviour by the Applicant that was 'violent, threatening' or caused 'the family member to be fearful'.
6. In Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report, Dr Sheridan describes the Applicant's offending, on 27 December 2004, as reported to her by the Applicant, as follows:

1. In 2006, Mr Steer was charged with Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm and Deprivation of Liberty relating to an incident with an ex-partner. Both charges were subsequently discontinued by Police. When asked about this incident, Mr Steer said he had been living with the woman and that their relationship fell apart and that he "got stupid" and did something "absolutely disgraceful". He stated he was "so smashed" (intoxicated) at the time but "there are no excuses for what I did": HB499.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal about the exact nature of Applicant's relationship with ' the victim in the Applicant's 27 December 2004 offending (Ms CS), is somewhat inconsistent. The Western Australian Police 'Statement of Material Facts', dated 1 February 2005, refers to Ms CS as the Applicant's 'ex-girlfriend'. However, elsewhere in the material before the Tribunal, their relationship is described as follows:
   1. Since around 2022, Mr Steer commenced a defacto relationship with his partner, [Ms CS].
   2. Mr Steer had known [Ms CS] for more than 20 years. However, it was not until around 2022 that their relationship developed romantically: HB156.
3. Therefore, the Western Australian Police 'Statement of Material Facts', dated 1 February 2005, refers to Ms CS being the Applicant's 'ex-girlfriend' at the time of the 27 December 2004 incident. Whereas the above submissions refer to the Applicant and Ms CS not becoming romantically involved until much later in 2022. Ms CS did not provide any statement or supporting letter to the Tribunal clarifying the nature of their relationship, especially at the time of the incident on 27 December 2004.
4. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he had known Ms CS for 22 years, that they were, at one point, in a relationship for a couple of years and that her 12 year-old daughter is his goddaughter. He said that he has 'unconditional love' for Ms CS and that they may 'kick things off again' if he is released, but they are currently not in a relationship.
5. The question then becomes whether what occurred on 27 December 2004 constituted 'family violence', as defined in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 and for the purpose of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 (Family violence committed by the non-citizen).
6. There is no doubt that the Applicant's conduct on 27 December 2004, as recorded by the police, was 'violent' and 'threatening' and caused his 'victim', Ms CS (who is referred to in the police report as the Applicant's 'ex-girlfriend'), to be 'fearful'. However, the definition 'family violence', in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110, refers to violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a 'member of the person's family'. The expression 'member of a person's family' is not defined for this purpose. If Ms CS was, in fact, the 'ex-girlfriend' of the Applicant at the time of the 27 December 2004, that begs the question whether that makes her a 'member of the [Applicant's] family or a 'family member' of the Applicant for the purpose of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110.
7. The Tribunal considers, based on the evidence before it, that what occurred on 27 December 2004 was more akin to 'domestic' violence, rather than 'family violence' (which, according to the definition of 'family violence' in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 is directed as a 'member of the person's family'), and, therefore, falls outside the ambit of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110. In the criminal and family law context, the expressions 'family violence' and 'domestic violence' are typically conflated into the expression 'family and domestic violence'. However, in the definition of 'family violence' paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 and in paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110, there is no mention of 'domestic violence', only 'family violence'. What occurred on 27 December 2004, undoubtedly constituted 'domestic violence' (for which the Applicant received no conviction) but, whether it rose to the level of 'family violence' for the purpose of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 is unclear. However, nothing ultimately turns on this.
8. In any event, the incident which occurred on 27 December 2004 was, on the evidence before the Tribunal, a one-off incident for which the Applicant received no conviction: paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110. Further, it is worth mentioning that, on his own evidence, the Applicant has maintained regular contact with Ms CS, since the 27 December 2004 incident, both before and during his incarceration and they remain on good terms. The Applicant is also Ms CS 12 year-old daughter's godfather.
9. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the second 'primary consideration' (Family violence committed by the non-citizen), in paragraph 8.2. of Direction 110, carries minimal weight against revocation.

THIRD PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA (PARAGRAPH 8.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa on the non-citizen's 'immediate family members in Australia', where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 provides that in considering whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, the Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of 'any other ties' that the Applicant has to the Australian community. In doing so, the Tribunal must have regard to:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > > > (ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community; and > > (b) the strength, duration and nature of family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

3. As stated above, the Applicant first arrived in Australia on 12 January 1981 and commenced residing in Australia on a permanent basis in 1995, at around 17 years of age: HB140.
4. The Applicant was born in Singapore and lived predominantly in Jakarta, Indonesia, prior to moving to Australia with his parents in 1995: HB140.
5. The Applicant committed his first offence in 1998, only three years after arriving in Australia: paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i) of Direction 110.

Immediate family members in Australia (paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant's father passed away (of cancer) on 27 July 2001, and the Applicant was the sole carer for his 86-year-old mother (a dual citizen of Australia and the United Kingdom) prior to his incarceration.
2. In a letter, dated 18 March 2024, the Applicant's mother explains that the Applicant moved back home after her husband (the Applicant's father) passed away on 27 July 2001. Mrs Steer describes the support the Applicant has provided her, since her husband passed, as follows:

...Paul's presence at home has had such an impact on my health and wellbeing. Without the care and support that I receive on a daily basis from Paul, I will have increasing difficulty in living and managing on my own.

Paul has always put my needs first and, with the never-ending task that come with a home, carries out the maintenance, repairs and work around the house and garden that come up. Having Paul live at home has not only provided me with a sense of security that no fence, alarm or security camera could ever replace, but makes me feel safe and protected which, as I have grown older, has become intrinsic to my overall health: HB165.

1. In a Statutory Declaration, dated 10 September 2024, the Applicant's declares that, if released into the community, the Applicant will live with her at her home and she will provide him with 'love, a good home and family support': HB170. Conversely, the Applicant's mother describes the adverse impact of having Paul removed from Australia to the United Kingdom will have on her, as follows:
   1. Since my arrival in Australia..., I have neither returned to the United Kingdom to reside on any permanent basis nor left Australia.
   2. Although I am a British citizen, I no longer have any ties, support or a home to live in the United Kingdom.

57. I have lived in Australia for the last 28 years.

59. All my family and extended family are in Australia.

60. I also care for my sister who lives in Western Australia.

1. I am unable to return to live in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else) if Paul cannot remain in Australia.
2. For me to leave Australia is akin to me starting over from scratch. It is a very huge undertaking and I cannot bear the thought of doing it.
3. I do not have plenty of time ahead of me to rebuild my life in the United Kingdom or anywhere else.

66. I do not know whether I have the ability to take long haul flights.

1. I stay at home the majority of the time, apart from going for medical checks, going to the shops or to see my sister. I am always home.

68. I Paul is not allowed to remain in Australia, I may not be able to see him again.

1. I will be absolutely devasted and my life would be over if Paul cannot come home. My life would be finished.
2. I need Paul to stay in Australia: HB170-HB171.
3. In a supporting letter, dated 21 October 2025, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, states:

I speak to Paul on the phone every day and pray with all my heart that Paul's Residence Visa will be reinstated, enabling him to come home. I will be so grateful for his help and support and know that Paul will in the future be a law abiding citizen: HB348.

1. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, told the Tribunal if the Applicant is deported she would not be able to sleep at night worrying about him. She said the Applicant would not 'stand a chance' in the United Kingdom without her love and support and that he would end up 'sleeping on the street'. Mrs Steer said that she does not want to move to the United Kingdom without her husband and have to 'start from scratch' (buy and set up a house) at the age of 86. Tearing up, Mrs Steer said that she probably would not even 'make the journey' from Australia to the United Kingdom at her age. Mrs Steer said that she has no family in the United Kingdom and that all her family immigrated to Perth many years ago and she does not know anyone there now.
2. The Applicant describes the overriding responsibility he has for the care for his mother, and the impact a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his Visa would have on her, as follows:

...Throughout my life, my mother has provided me with unwavering support and love. As her only child, I feel a profound moral and familial obligation to be present for her during her remaining years, offering the care and support she needs. Living with and caring for her will enable me to provide the essential emotional and practical daily assistance she requires, while simultaneously fostering my own stability and successful reintegration into the community.

During my incarceration, my mother has faced increasing challenges in maintaining her independence within our family home. Should I be unable to resume my role as her caregiver, it is highly likely that she will be unable to continue living independently and will necessitate a move into assisted living. At her advance age, international travel is not a viable option, and m deportation would inflict devastating consequences son her psychological, emotional, and physical well-being. I understand that my actions have...led to this precarious situation, and while I must ultimately accept the consequences of my behaviour, I am deeply ashamed that it is my mother who stands to be most profoundly impacted by the cancellation of my visa: HB162.

1. There is no doubt, in the Tribunal's mind, that the Applicant's removal from Australia to the United Kingdom would have a serious adverse impact on his 86 year-old mother, Mrs Steer, who has no one, other than the Applicant, to support her in Australia and that her relocation to the United Kingdom is not a viable option for her at her age.

Other ties to the Australian community (paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant's aunt, Joyce Grange, also lives in Australia, along with seven cousins, his ex-partner (Ms CS), Ms CS' daughter (from another relationship), and friends: HB146 and HB151.
2. The Applicant's aunt submits they are a small family and they would do everything to help the Applicant in the future: HB174-HB175.
3. Letters of support from friends of the Applicant state the Applicant is a devoted and caring friend, pillar of support for his mother and an invaluable member of the community: HB176-HB180 and HB349-HB352.
4. The Applicant was employed at Electrosec Electrical Cybersecurity (Electrosec) until his incarceration and the Managing Director of Electrosec, Jack De'Ceglie, has provided a supporting letter, dated 8 March 2024, attesting to the Applicant's good character, strong work ethic and dedication to his family: HB180. In that letter, Mr De'Ceglie also states:

...I would be happy to welcome [the Applicant] back to Electrosec Pty Ltd, where his skills and expertise would be a valuable asset to our cybersecurity initiatives: HB180.

1. The Applicant's education and employment history is summarised in Dr Sheridan's November 2025 Psychological Report, as follows:

1. Mr Steer completed Year 10 while at boarding school in the United Kingdom. He then completed Years 11 and 12 in Western Australia. Following high school, he attended Murdoch University for approximately two years but did not complete his degree.
2. Throughout his adult life, Mr Steer has had varied employment. His work history includes hospitality roles, warehousing, earthmoving equipment operation, courier services,, and videography work focused on action sports: HB497-HB498.
3. As stated above, in the evidence before the Tribunal, there are several letters offering the Applicant employment and support if he is released into the community: HB507, HB509-HB510.

Conclusion: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that, overall, the third 'primary consideration' (The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

FOURTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 8.4 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must determine whether non-revocation under s 501CA of the Migration Act is or is not in the best interests of a child under 18 years old who, at the time when the decision is expected to be made, is affected by the decision: paragraph 8.4(1) and (2) of Direction 110. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ: paragraph 8.4(3) of Direction 110.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110, states that in considering the best interests of the child, the Tribunal must consider the following factors, where relevant:

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship, and/or there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact; > > (b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18 and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements; > > (c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child; > > (d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the non-citizen's ability to maintain contact with the child in other ways; > > (e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; > > (f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child); > > (g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; and > > (h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct: paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110.

3. The Applicant contends that he is the godfather to the 12 year-old daughter of his ex-partner Ms CS (NS): HB142. The Applicant has previously submitted that, after NS's father passed away in October 2020, he became a father figure to NS: HB142.
4. However, in a Statutory Declaration made by the Applicant's mother, on the 23 October 2024, Mrs Steer declares that the Applicant and Ms CS are no longer in a relationship, no longer intend on marrying and that neither Ms CS nor her minor daughter, NS, intend on living with her: HB173.
5. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he has known Ms CS for about 22 years and was in a relationship with her for a few years. After NS's father passed away, he became her godfather, but tried to stay away because he was a 'bad influence' at that time. He confirmed that he is currently not in a relationship with Ms CS and that NS lives with and is primarily cared for by Ms CS.
6. The Applicant told the Tribunal that, if he is deported to the United Kingdom, Ms CS and NS would manage/survive without him, although NS would undoubtedly be upset by his deportation. In the future, he would like to offer NS love and respect and be a father figure to her.
7. In the Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contention, the Applicant concedes that:
   1. As there are no minor children involved in this case this factor should be afforded neutral weight: HB8.
8. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that the fourth 'primary consideration' (The best interests of minor children affected by the decision), in paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

FIFTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY (PARAGRAPH 8.5 OF DIRECTION 110)

Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider the expectations of the 'Australian Community'. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 states:

The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australia community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. > > (emphasis added)

The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1), 'The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia', reflects the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[20] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 sets out the expectations of the Australian community 'as a norm'. The effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the Australian community are and thereby preclude the Tribunal from undertaking any assessment of what, in any factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[21] That proposition is encapsulated in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110, which provides:

This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

The utility of this approach by the Australian Government, to assist decision-makers, is obvious. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by stating:

In addition,.....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... continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia, or elsewhere, of the following kind:

Importantly, paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states:

The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (emphasis added)

It is not in dispute that this consideration weighs against revocation: HB8. Even if that were not the case, the Tribunal considers that, in circumstances where the Applicant has consistently disobeyed Australian laws over a lengthy period (having been found guilty of 35 offences over a 27 year period) the Australian community, as a norm, expects that the Applicant is not to be allowed to remain in Australia. 6. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110, weighs moderately against revocation.

FIRST OTHER CONSIDERATION: LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 9.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, in the circumstances specified in s 198 of the Migration Act, and in the meantime, detention under s 189, noting also that s 197C(1) of the Migration Act provides that, for the purposes of s 198 of the Migration Act, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful citizen.

1. That is, in considering the legal consequences of its decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power, including any decision under s 105 of the ART Act.[22]
2. A consequence of the Tribunal affirming the decision under review is that the Applicant will:
   • remain an unlawful non-citizen,
   • be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable: ss 189 and 198 of the Migration Act;
   • not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (except for a protection visa), in accordance with s 501E of the Migration Act; and
   • would be unable to satisfy special return criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations, which is applicable to most visa grants: Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 per Feutrill J at [12]-[14].
3. While the Tribunal must consider those legal consequences under this consideration, in circumstances where the applicant's exclusion from Australia is an intended purpose of the statutory scheme and that purpose underlies the considerations in Direction 110, the Tribunal afford this consideration neutral weight: Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 per Charlesworth J at [37].
4. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the first 'other consideration' (Legal consequences of the decision), in paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

SECOND OTHER CONSIDERATION: EXTENT OF IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED (PARAGRAPH 9.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider:

...the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: > > a) the non-citizen's age and health; > > b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

1. any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

Applicant's age and health: paragraph 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 110

1. The Applicant is currently 47 years old and, on his own evidence, he is currently in good physical health, exercising daily whilst in detention.
2. The Applicant has concluded his Interferon Therapy for the treatment of his HCV and, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, resolved the cognitive impairment issues he had because of HCV.
3. There is also evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has testicular cancer: HB134. However, this matter was not raised in evidence by the Applicant or the Respondent either prior to or at the hearing.

Substantial language or cultural barriers in United Kingdom: paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110

1. English is the Applicant's first language and at the age of 14 he was sent to boarding school in the United Kingdom for two years: HB140 at [27]. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant will not experience 'substantial' language or cultural barriers in the United Kingdom: paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110.

Social, medical, and/or economic support available in United Kingdom: paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of Direction 110

1. The has lived in Western Australia for over 29 years (having arrived here at the age of 17), all members of his immediate and extended family, including his elderly (86 year-old) mother, his aunt (Joyce Grange) and at least seven cousins, live in Australia. The Applicant's father and grandmother are buried in Western Australia. Further, all the Applicant's friends and support network employment connections are in Australia.
2. The Applicant has never resided in the United Kingdom as an adult. When the Applicant was around 14 years old, his parents sent him to boarding school for two years in the United Kingdom, where he completed the GSCE exams before rejoining his parents in Indonesia: HB140.
3. The Applicant has a half-brother (Sir Andrew David Steer) and half-sister (Jacqueline Joyce Gardiner), who are British citizens, that live in the United Kingdom. They are his late father's children from a previous relationship. Neither the Applicant, nor his mother, have any relationship or contact with them: HB146. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal, if he is deported to the United Kingdom, he would not embarrass himself by reaching out to his half-siblings for help and that they probably would not even want to 'rub shoulders' with him. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant's mother, Mrs Steer, confirmed she has never had any contact with the Applicant's half siblings in the United Kingdom.
4. In relation to the Applicant's social and economic support in the United Kingdom, the Applicant states the following:

...aside from a brief period attending boarding school in Bournemouth during my childhood, I have never resided in the United Kingdom as an adult. I have no immediate family, no established social network, an no professional or employment connections there. In every meaningful sense, the United Kingdom is a foreign country to me.

In stark contrast, Australia has been my cherished home for over 29 years. I arrived at the age of 17 and have cultivated a life deeply rooted in family, community, and contribution. All members of my immediate family, including my elderly mother, are Australian citizens, My deportation would result in permanent separation from them, placing me in an unfamiliar country devoid of support, stable housing, or adequate resources. The likely outcome would be severe emotional stress, potential homelessness and significant economic instability: HB162-HB163.

1. In an undated letter of support from the Applicant's aunt, Joyce Grange, Ms Grange states:

To force [the Applicant] to return to [the] UK would be absurd. He knows no one there and I am quite sure he would have suicidal tendencies: HB174.

1. The Applicant has also worked in a number of different jobs in Australia, since arriving here at the age of 17. That is:
   1. Since arriving in Australia, [the Applicant] worked in a number of different trades including as a boiler maker, fitter, turner and similar trades work.
   2. Subsequently, he worked in several other jobs which included being a DJ and hairdressing apprenticeship.

34. Mr Steer is highly talented and versatile: HB152 and HB55.

1. Accordingly, the Applicant has a broad range of skills and experience that are transferrable and can be used to obtain employment, and lead to a productive life, in the United Kingdom.
2. Further, there is nothing to suggest that, as a citizen of the United Kingdom, the Applicant would not be entitled to and provided the same standard of health care and social welfare support available to any other citizen of the United Kingdom.

Conclusion: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant may face some practical, financial, and emotional hardship upon his return to the United Kingdom, as a result of being separated from his mother in Australia and in re-establishing himself in the United Kingdom. However, these impediments are not insurmountable.
2. As stated above, the second 'other consideration' is directed at whether a person can establish themselves and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to their home country: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110. On the evidence before it, the Applicant will be able to establish himself and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to Hong Kong: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110.
3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the second 'other consideration' (Extent of impediments if removed), in paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

THIRD OTHER CONSIDERATION: IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS (PARAGRAPH 9.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 or s 501CA 'would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.'
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any impact on Australian businesses, or significantly compromising the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia, if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the third 'other consideration' (Impact on Australian business interests), in paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

1. For the above reasons, in relation to the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110) - weighs moderately against revocation; > > (b) Family violence committed by the non-citizen (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight against revocation; > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110) - weighs heavily in favour of revocation; > > (d) Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110) - weighs moderately against revocation.

2. For the above reasons, in relation to the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Legal consequences of the decision (paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation; > > (b) Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110) - weighs moderately in favour of revocation; and > > (c) Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation.

3. Informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and having weighed the considerations in favour of revocation and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal is satisfied, on balance, there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.
4. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that, as stated above, paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, is generally given greater weight than the other four 'primary considerations' and that, otherwise, the 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110) should generally be given greater weight than the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110).

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal sets the Non-revocation Decision aside and substitutes that decision with the decision that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirteen (213) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member C Lyford

Cultivate a Prohibited Plant.; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7 (2)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24-MAY-2024.- Concurrent

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7B (6)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24-MAY-2024. - Concurrent

Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) B

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24-MAY-2024.-Concurrent

Manufacture a prohibited drug; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(b) AF

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 20 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24- MAY-2024. - Concurrent

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24-MAY-2024. - Concurrent

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7B (6)

Possessed a controlled weapon.; Weapons Act 1999; 7 (1) A

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7B (6)

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 6 mths - Concurrent; FINE: $650

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7B (6)

[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative; FINE: $1000

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) R

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act (WA) 1981; 6 (2) R

[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative; FINE: $1000

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act (WA) 1981; 6 (2) R

[1] The 'Hearing Book' (comprising 580 pages), was marked as 'Exhibit 1' on 4 December 2025, being day one of the two-day hearing of this review application (HB).

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

[3] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338.

[4] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), s 56(1)(a); Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake (No 2)) at 636; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [140]; CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35].

[5] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]-[26].

[6] See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].

[7] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [33].

[8] See Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82 at [27].

[9] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].

[10] https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/ministerial-direction-110-signed-07062024.aspx. See also s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

[11] Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2; (2018) 262 CLR 333 at [94].

[12] Short and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3037.

[13] Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [42]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15; (2015) 256 CLR 203 at [5], [44], [102], and [104].

[14] Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198 at [44].

[15] McFarlane v State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 33 at [41]

[16] See Pokrywka and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 5165 at [35]; Gage and Minister for Home Affairs [2020] AATA 326 at [75]- [76]; SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 344 at [43]; Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 421 at [80]- [81]; Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32 at [50]- [51].

[17] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471 at [74].

[18] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [33]-[36].

[19] Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[86].

[20] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (FYBR) at [69]-[70].

[21] FYBR at [67] and [92]-[93].

[22] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1 at [3], [9] and [10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146 at [84] and [88].