1. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the Application on 16 July 2025 by video-conference. The Applicant was represented by Dr van Galen-Dickie, an advocate from Sisters Inside Inc[11]. The Respondent was represented by Mr Greg Johnson of counsel.
2. In conducting the review, the Tribunal had regard to:

(a) the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to section 501G of the Act, numbered G1 to G13 and paginated from pages 1 to 395 (G Documents);

(b) a bundle of documents produced under summons tendered by the Respondent sequentially numbered TB1 to TB56 and paginated from pages 1 to 277 (TB Documents);

(c) a bundle of documents summonsed from the Australian Border Force produced by the Applicant (Exhibit A3)

(d) a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions produced by the Applicant with Attachments numbered 1 to 16 (ASFIC);

(e) a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions produced by the Respondent (RSFIC);

(f) A Reply submission produced by the Applicant (AReply);

(g) A Supplementary Submission dated 17 July 2025 produced by the Respondent (RSS);

(h) A further reply submission produced by the Applicant dated 18 July 2025 (AFReply);

(i) Witness statement of the Applicant's mother dated 12 May 2025 (Exhibit A1)

(j) Witness statement of the Applicant's mother dated 11 July 2025 (Exhibit A2); and

(k) the oral evidence of the Applicant's mother.

1. The Applicant's representative informed the Tribunal that the Applicant was unable to attend the hearing or give evidence due to her mental health condition and provided a letter from a Dr Luke Hatzipetrou dated 10 July 2025 explaining the steps taken by him to unsuccessfully attempt to undertake a psychological assessment of the Applicant while she was in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

1. Section 501CA(4) of the Act enables the Tribunal on review to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision if it is satisfied that:

(a) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

(b) there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.

1. Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person is deemed not to pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', which is relevantly defined to include:
   1. having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more - s.501(7)(c); and
   2. having been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more - s.501(7)(d).
2. On 29 June 2023, the Applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 months to be served concurrently with sentences for convictions for further offences including stealing, trespass, unlicensed driving, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breach of bail conditions, failure to appear, possessing dangerous drugs, obstructing police, and being armed to cause fear.
3. As a result, the Applicant has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in ss.501(7)(c) and (d). She therefore fails the character test under section 501(6)(a). The Applicant does not dispute that she fails the character test.[12]
4. Accordingly, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked. That reason:

... must be a reason that carries sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked. Only a reason of that character enlivens the statutory power to revoke. It is the absence of such a reason that will result in a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.[13]

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction 110) to commence operation from 21 June 2024. Direction 110 provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked.
2. Section 499 of the Act authorises the Minister to give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under that Act, provided that the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with the direction.[14]
3. Paragraph 6 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers must take into account the considerations identified in paragraphs 8 and 9 where relevant to the decision within the framework provided by the principles stated in paragraph 5.2.
4. Paragraph 8 of Part 2 sets out the five primary considerations:

(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;

1. Paragraph 9(1) of Part 2 sets out other considerations. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations and specifically provides that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.

1. A complete statement of the Applicant's criminal record as reported by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 15 December 2023 was included in the G Documents.[15]
2. The Applicant's offending is extensive involving multiple convictions for various offences on 22 March 2006, 30 November 2006, 25 March 2015, 15 June 2017, 6 September 2018, 12 December 2019, 30 July 2020, 6 August 2020, 26 October 2020, 19 January 2021, 18 July 2022, 26 June 2023 and 16 November 2023. In summary the offending was:

1. On 22 March 2006 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of breach of bail undertaking and fined $450.

1. On 30 November 2006 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of three counts of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking for which she was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 months (comprising separate concurrent terms) suspended for 12 months.

1. On 25 March 2015 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of five counts of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking and one count of breach of orders imposed for which she was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 3 months imprisonment (comprising separate concurrent sentences) and released on parole on 25 March 2015.

1. On 15 June 2017 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of
   1. robbery armed/in company/wounded/used personal violence for which she was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment;
   2. assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company for which she was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment;

The Applicant was further convicted in the District Court of stealing, breach of bail condition (8 charges), contravene direction or requirement police officer, failure to appear in accordance with undertaking and failure to properly dispose of needle or syringe, for which no further penalty was imposed

1. On 6 September 2018 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of
   1. failure to appear in accordance with undertaking for which she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months, suspended for 18 months; and
   2. unlawful use of motor vehicle and fraud - dishonestly make off without paying for which she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months, suspended for 18 months;

1. On 12 December 2019 the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court of
   1. breach of orders (two counts) for which she received a suspended sentence of 2 months imprisonment; and
   2. possession of dangerous drugs, possess utensils or pipes, possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence and contravene direction or requirement, for which she was fined $600
2. In separate court appearances on 19 January 2021, 26 October 2020, 6 August 2020 and 30 July 2020 the Applicant was convicted of offences including possess utensils or pipes etc that may be used, fail to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of syringe or needle, fare evasion and wilful damage to property for which she received various fines.

1. On 18 July 2022 the Applicant was convicted in the Brisbane Magistrate's Court on five counts of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months to be released on parole from 18 August 2022.

1. On 29 June 2023, the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court of numerous offences including burglary, stealing, trespass, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breach of bail conditions, failure to appear, possessing dangerous drugs, obstructing police, and being armed to cause fear. She was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 months imprisonment comprising various sentences to be served concurrently.

1. On 16 November 2023, the Applicant was convicted in the Southport Magistrate's Court of
   1. unlawful use of motor vehicles and used or threatened to use actual violence for which she received an aggregate sentence of 9 months imprisonment to be served concurrently; and
   2. fare evasion and stealing (two counts) for which she received no further punishment.

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to give consideration to:

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

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

Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant's Conduct to Date

1. The nature of the Applicant's offending is widespread and repeated. It has involved the use of violence, multiple incidents of dishonesty, long standing and repeated breaches of bail and other conditions, repeated failures to appear and repeated drug-related offending.
2. Of particular concern are the incidents of violence in the Applicant's criminal record. She committed the serious offences of armed robbery and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company in 2006 and more recently was convicted in 2023 of being armed to cause fear and used or threatened to use actual violence. The nature of the offences for which the Applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted on 15 June 2017 was described by the prosecution as follows:

[Applicant], in the company of others, essentially committed an unprovoked assault on two females in a public place. They approached them at a train station from behind. One of the offenders, Ms R, grabbed one of the complainant's bags and a struggle takes place. During that struggle, the complainant is pulled by the back of her hair and grabbed. [Applicant] punches the complainant Ms S to her face, and another offender - another co-accused hits the complainant. They ultimately obtain the bag, and then [Applicant] demanded the complainant's phone and another punch to the complainant's face. And as they were leaving, [Applicant] punches the complainant again to the eyes. During the struggle, the other complainant, Ms G, was also punched to the face. There was ultimately a number of punches thrown and property is taken from the complainant Ms S. Both the complainants received some bruising and swelling.[16]

1. The Applicant's offending has also been marked by a consistent disregard for the authority of the courts and the laws of Australia. The offending for which she was convicted on 15 June 2017 occurred on 11 November 2005 when the Applicant was 19 years of age. The prosecution noted during their address to the court that the delay in the matters was because of the Applicant essentially absconding from the court proceedings, there having been about eight warrants issued for her arrest.[17] In addition, the Applicant has multiple convictions for breach of bail conditions and failure to appear. In sentencing the Applicant on 15 June 2017, Magistrate Duroux stated:

The difficulty that I have in relation to you, [Applicant], is since you've been back, for some strange reason this Court continues to give you ... bail. And for some reason, you continue to flout your nose at that and you continue not to turn up. Now, I understand, I've been a parent, our kids, that's our priority. But you have a significant obligation to this Court and unless you discharge your obligation to the Court, you're going to be locked up for a very, very significant period of time. I'm satisfied that sentences of imprisonment are both justified and appropriate.[18]

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides a description of what is considered 'very serious' and 'serious' conduct. Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(iii) list certain crimes which are to be regarded as 'very serious' and include crimes of violence and particularly crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women regardless of the sentence imposed.
2. The Applicant's convictions for robbery armed/in company/wounded/used personal violence and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company on 15 June 2017 involved violent conduct directed at two female victims. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) requires that crimes of violence and/or of a sexual nature against women are to be regarded as very serious irrespective of the sentence imposed and it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to the length of sentence in assessing its seriousness.[19] There can be no doubt that this aspect of the Applicant's offending is to be viewed as very serious conduct for the purpose of Direction 110.
3. In addition, paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(c)-(i) set out a range of factors decision-makers must consider in assessing the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date. This includes, for relevant purposes in this case:

(a) (b)

(c) the sentences imposed by the courts in relation to the Applicant's other crimes;

(d) the impact of the Applicant's offending on victims and their family;

(e) the frequency of the Applicant's offending; and

(f) the cumulative effect of any repeated offending;

(g) ...

(h) whether the Applicant re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of her immigration status.

1. Apart from her convictions for robbery armed/in company/wounded/used personal violence and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company on 15 June 2017, the Applicant received custodial sentences on seven occasions for her other criminal offending:
   1. on 30 November 2006 for the offence of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking she was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 months (comprising separate concurrent terms) suspended for 12 months;
   2. on 25 March 2025 for the offence of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking and one count of breach of orders imposed she was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 3 months imprisonment (comprising separate concurrent sentences) and released on parole on 25 March 2015;
   3. on 6 September 2018 for the offences of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months, suspended for 18 months; and for the offence of unlawful use of motor vehicle and fraud - dishonestly make off without paying she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months, suspended for 18 months;
   4. on 12 December 2019 for the offence of breach of orders (two counts) she received a suspended sentence of 2 months imprisonment;
   5. on 18 July 2022 for the offence of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking and sentenced she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months to be released on parole from 18 August 2022;
   6. on 29 June 2023, for numerous offences including _burglary, stealing, trespass, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breach of bail conditions, failure to appear, possessing dangerous drugs, obstructing police, and being armed to cause fear s_he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 months imprisonment comprising various sentences to be served concurrently; and
   7. on 16 November 2023, for the offence of unlawful use of motor vehicles and used or threatened to use actual violence she received an aggregate sentence of 9 months imprisonment.
2. Custodial sentences reflect the objective seriousness of the offences involved and are generally a last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[20] The fact that the court has imposed custodial sentences notwithstanding that they were suspended or subject to early parole in some cases, indicates that the Applicant's offending throughout the period 2006-2023 was serious.
3. As to the impact on victims, Dearden DCJ noted in his sentencing remarks on 15 June 2015 regarding the victim Ms S that:

It obviously still affects her all these years later, so it just shows how long lasting the effects of such a serious event can be.[21]

1. The Victim Impact Statement from Ms S dated 2 June 2017 provided to the Court states:

Since that night back in November 2005 I have continued to suffer. After the attack I was to scared to walk alone, even during the day, if I did end up walking alone i would be looking over my shoulder constantly and start breathing erratically, anxiety attacks. That still hasn't gone away i still have the anxiety attacks when out by myself, still longing over my shoulder. That night my money, cards, house keys, handbag, phone, bottle of perfume and some other items was stolen from me, I never got any of it back. I had to cancel cards and phone. They had my name, birthdate and home address. I had to change all the locks on the windows and doors. Padlock the gates, Safe proof the house in case she decided to bring her friends back and bash or rob me again for calling the police I tried hard not to let that night affect me but no matter how hard I tried it was useless. Bashing a person because your bored is pathetic and now I have to live with the consequences of those actions for the rest of my life. Headaches, anxiety attacks, trust issues. [22]

1. In relation to the Applicant's conviction for the offence of armed so as to cause fear, Magistrate O'Driscoll stated in his sentencing remarks on 29 June 2023 that:

In my view, you terrorised the victim in relation to your actions. It is certainly not a joke. No humour in relation to the matter. An innocent person was terrorised by your conduct.[23]

1. The seriousness of the Applicant's past conduct is evident from the frequency of her offending which continued over the period from 2006 to 2023. The Applicant continued to offend notwithstanding some leniency from the courts in imposing suspended sentences and granting short parole periods. The Applicant was not deterred by periods of imprisonment.
2. It is also significant that the Applicant continued to offend after being warned about the possible cancellation of her visa. On 8 August 2018, the Applicant's Visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act on the basis of her convictions on 15 June 2017. On 24 September 2018 a delegate revoked the original cancellation, and in a letter notifying the Applicant of the decision issued the following warning:

Warning: If you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds.[24]

1. Having regard to these matters, and particularly the violent offending against women and the frequency of the offences, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's past criminal conduct was very serious.

The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires the decision-maker, in assessing whether the Applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, to have regard, cumulatively, to:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

(b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending.

1. The Applicant's offending has involved the use of violence, multiple incidents of dishonesty, repeated failures to attend, breaches of bail and other conditions, driving offences and repeated drug-related offending.
2. If that conduct is repeated it threatens to inflict physical, psychological and financial harm on members of the Australian community and to disrupt the orderly functioning of the community and the system of law enforcement.

1. In assessing the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal is mindful of the comments of the Full Court of the Federal Court in CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs that in curial and administrative decision-making, the task of assessing the degree of likelihood of an event occurring in the future 'must be based on a logical process of reasoning based on the known facts'.[25]
2. The Applicant has demonstrated a preparedness to use violence and the threat of violence. She has committed multiple offences of dishonesty and has repeatedly disregarded court ordered requirements by breaching bail conditions and failing to attend court. She has disregarded the driving laws and has multiple convictions related to anti-social behaviour associated with drug use.
3. The High Court has determined that the concept of the nature of an offence requires a consideration of the circumstances of the offending, including its result and the state of mind which accompanied it.[26]
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant's offending must be considered in light of her chronic and severe mental illness, substance abuse issues and her exposure to violent relationships.
5. The Applicant's mother gave evidence that the Applicant's father was an extremely violent man and that she had moved to Australia with the Applicant and her two sisters to escape his domestic violence.[27] The Applicant's mother also gave evidence that the Applicant had been the subject of domestic violence in her relationship with her ex-partner.[28]
6. In assessing the risk of re-offending the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is likely to have been affected as a young child by her exposure to her father's domestic violence and by her experience of domestic violence at the hand of her ex-partner. However, the factors underlying her offending are complex.
7. The Applicant's mother gave evidence that she first noticed the Applicant exhibiting psychotic behaviour in around 2016 when the Applicant was involved in a difficult relationship with her ex-partner. She said that prior to this the Applicant had lived away from her and she had limited contact.
8. Dr Chrystal van de Belt, a psychiatrist with the Prison Mental Health Service, reported on 18 March 2024 that the Applicant had first presented with psychotic symptoms in 2016 and a diagnosis of Schizophrenia was confirmed in 2020. Dr van de Belt described her symptoms as follows:

Her illness has been characterized by persecutory delusions (people harming her and her children and fearing for their safety), somatic delusions (people poisoning her), auditory hallucinations (people making derogatory comments about her), thought disorder, disinhibition and aggression. [the Applicant's] is currently treated with an oral antipsychotic medication (aripiprazole) which she has been compliant with. She has previously suffered side-effects from other antipsychotic medications requiring changes in treatment.

[the Applicant's] mental illness has been complicated by psychosocial stressors including domestic violence relationships[29].

1. On 25 October 2018, the Applicant became subject to a Treatment Authority under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld), which allows for the involuntary treatment of her mental illness, as the Applicant was 'Paranoid, disorganised, laughing fatuously. Hx of schizophrenia and non-compliant with depot'[30].
2. Dr van de Belt reported in her letter dated 4 September 2024[31] that the Applicant_:_

...recently had a mental health admission (22 May - 18 July 2024) for an acute psychotic relapse of Schizophrenia. This occurred after she became non- compliant with her long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication (depot zuclopenthixol 200mg fortnightly) and refused oral antipsychotic medication. [Applicant's] depot treatment was recommenced during this admission, her acute psychotic episode remitted, and she was returned to custody.[32]

Dr van de Belt described the Applicant's then current presentation as:

[Applicant] has since become non-compliant with medication and subsequently suffered a further acute psychotic relapse.

[Applicant] is currently presenting with bizarre delusions (she is a vampire), persecutory delusions (people in Australia target and persecute her) and grandiose delusions (she owns multiple properties in America and New Zealand). [Applicant] has been observed within her unit, screaming loudly and laughing hysterically (likely indicators that she is responding to unseen stimuli such as auditory hallucinations). [Applicant] has become agitated, confrontational and hostile. She has made threats towards other prisoners. [Applicant] has now refused to engage with mental health services, typical of her presentation when suffering an acute psychotic episode.

[Applicant] no longer engages in reviews. [Applicant] sometimes declines to attend the Medical Centre within the Correctional Facility. When she attends, she refuses to come out of the waiting area, loudly (with hostility) states that she does not have to see me, or take medication, because she is being deported, and then demands to leave. When reminded that she remains under a Treatment Authority and is required to engage with Mental Health Services, [Applicant] argumentatively states that she is not under a Treatment Authority because she is being deported. I am now unable to converse with her for more than a couple of sentences.

[Applicant] has been referred for a mental health admission. I cannot advise when this will occur, as it depends on patients being discharged from the hospital, patients presenting to the emergency department or the community mental health services requiring an admission and based on prioritization.[33]

1. On 13 September 2024, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), made orders to appoint the Applicant's mother as guardian for legal matters not relating to financial or property matters, for three (3) months, subject to further order.[34] On 12 November 2024, QCAT, made further orders appointing the Applicant's mother as guardian for health care and legal matters not relating to financial or property matters for 1 year.[35]
2. In a written submission in support of her revocation application dated 6 January 2025 the Applicant's representative confirmed that the Applicant was admitted to the mental health ward of Logan Hospital in May 2024[36] and was re-admitted in October 2024.[37]
3. There are indications that the Applicant's mental health has deteriorated in recent times and since being taken into immigration detention on 25 November 2024. In an email sent on 31 January 2025, the Applicant's representative stated that changes made to the Applicant's medication had reversed the gains she had made in hospital prior to her detention and she was then back in Hospital for long term treatment[38]. In her written statement dated 12 May 2025 the Applicant's mother stated that:

...during her time in prison and in detention I have seen a rapid decline in her mental health. The times that she is able to focus and understand what is happening are rare. She has been hospitalised three times in less than 12 months.[39]

1. The Applicant has a number of relatively minor drug-related convictions over the period since 2006. Her mother confirmed in her written statement that the Applicant has a history of drug use which has made her mental health condition worse.[40] Dearden DCJ noted in his sentencing remarks in June 2017 that '..there's an ongoing drug problem as well, which seems to be comorbid with a - well, potentially the cause of a significant mental health disorder. A complicated background.'[41] In sentencing the Applicant on 29 June 2023 Magistrate O'Driscoll accepted that the Applicant had a methylamphetamine addiction.
2. There are indications that the Applicant has taken some limited steps to address her substance abuse issues. Magistrate O'Driscoll noted in June 2023 that the Applicant was undertaking the MARA program which is described as a gender-specific service based on a trauma-informed approach operating in women's correctional facilities.[42] The Applicant stated in her Personal Circumstances Form that she has done a Drug Arm Course[43] and she provided a certificate of completion for a "(SSI 6 Hour) Connect Program from Drug Arm dated 27 November 2023.[44]
3. Recent IHMS records note that the Applicant has reported that she has not taken methylamphetamine for two to three years while in prison and detention.
4. The Applicant commenced offending in 2005 when she was 19 years old. The court record does not indicate that drugs played a part in her offending in 2005. The comments of Dearden DCJ regarding the Applicant's mental health and on-going drug problems seem to relate to her circumstances at the time of sentencing in 2017. The Applicant was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until 2016 and her mother had not noted symptoms until that time. The Applicant's mother stated that the Applicant was introduced to drugs by her ex-partner[45] with whom she established a relationship in about 2007. Similarly, the charges related to the Applicant's failure to appear over the period of ten years prior to June 2015 appear not to be the result of the Applicant's mental illness or her drug use. Magistrate Duroux commented that the Applicant had '..fled the state because of issues in the community. You went there. You had an unremarkable life there, I'm told, no problems. Then you've come back.' He indicated that the Applicant had not appeared before the court over that time because she had given priority to her children.[46]
5. The Applicant was convicted of numerous crimes committed after 2016 but the incomplete court records available to the Tribunal do not disclose that the Applicant's drug use was a significant factor in her offending, other than her convictions for minor drug-related offences such as improper disposal of a syringe (15 June 2017) and possession of dangerous drug and possess utensils connected with drug use (various dates between December 2019 and June 2023).
6. The court records do not provide any direct indication that the Applicant's mental health was a factor in her offending, and there is no indication that she was considered unfit to plead. The courts accepted a guilty plea in each case.
7. The Tribunal is mindful that there is a difference between psychotic behaviour and criminal conduct. The mere fact that the Applicant had exhibited psychotic behaviour in the period from 2016 to 2023 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that her offending in that period resulted from her mental condition.
8. Unfortunately, the Applicant was unable to attend the Tribunal hearing or give evidence because of her mental health condition.
9. Having considered the available evidence the Tribunal accepts that it is likely the Applicant's mental health issues and associated drug use played some part in her offending at least after 2016 and her moral culpability is mitigated by this influence and the effect of the domestic violence to which she and her children were exposed. However, the Applicant's offending since 2005, and particularly her resort to violence, her dishonesty and her disregard for her legal obligations under court orders and otherwise, cannot be entirely excused by her mental health condition and past drug use, and raises serious character concerns. In this regard the extent of the Applicant's genuine remorse is a relevant consideration.
10. Although the Applicant pleaded guilty to each of the offences for which she was convicted her guilty pleas offer little evidence of actual remorse since her record demonstrates repeated offending.
11. The Applicant did not give evidence at the hearing and so the Tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing from the Applicant directly. In her handwritten letter of 12 August 2024, the Applicant expressed remorse for her conduct. She stated that:

I am beyond remorseful. I am sorry for causing pain to others while acting so wrecklessly (sic). I am sorry for becoming a burden to the Justice System and disrespecting those who helped me and revoked the decision to cancel my visa previously in 2018. I am so regretful of these actions. I will accept any type of help offered or that is suggested. Participate in if granted the opportunity to this time be a valuable member of society.[47]

1. The Applicant's mother commented in her statement that:

Her offences are awful and [Applicant] has admitted her shame and her sadness at the things she did and the people affected..[48]

1. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant has reflected on her offending and that she has some genuine remorse, although the extent to which her remorse would act as a deterrent to further offending is unclear.
2. The Applicant has provided limited evidence regarding her support in the community.
3. QCAT has appointed her mother as legal guardian and her mother stated in her statement of 12 May 2025 [49] that she will support her in any way she can, including initially providing her with accommodation in her home and helping her find employment.
4. The Applicant clearly has a need for mental health support. Dr van de Belt commented in her report of 18 March 2024 that:

[Applicant]'s mental illness has been complicated by psychosocial stressors including domestic violence relationships. She has support from her mother who resides in Australia and had acquired stable accommodation

[Applicant] will require ongoing treatment of her mental illness with medication and Community Mental Health Service Management. If [Applicant] is released into the community, she will be referred back to the community team that was managing her prior to her arrest, will continue to be managed under a Treatment Authority and treated with antipsychotic medication.[50]

1. The Applicant is likely to have limited employment prospects if released into the community and those prospects depend on her response to further treatment and compliance with her medication regime. Her case worker in prison reported that the Applicant claims to have an employment option as a landscaper available to her and that she has a diploma in beauty therapy and certificate as a barista. The Applicant also claims to speak, read and write in English, German and Maori.[51] These claims were not substantiated by the Applicant. Her mother confirmed in her oral evidence that the Applicant had little work experience. The Applicant's mother said she may apply for a disability support pension for the Applicant to provide financial support but would prefer to teach her some skills so that she could work with her in property maintenance and landscaping.
2. On 3 October 2023 the Parole Board of Queensland, suspended the Applicant's parole order indefinitely because the Board reasonably believed that the Applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence.[52]

1. The Applicant has an extensive criminal record. She has been convicted of multiple and varied offences over the period from 2006 to 2023. She has not been deterred by written warnings issued by the Respondent or by the sentences imposed by the courts.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's offending, at least after 2016, was affected by her serious mental health condition and her related substance abuse, but her criminal record nevertheless indicates a preparedness to behave violently, to act dishonestly and to disregard her legal obligations especially in relation to her attendance at court and compliance with bail conditions. These matters raise serious character concerns. While the Applicant has expressed genuine remorse the Tribunal is not satisfied that her remorse is sufficiently strong to deter her from further offending.
3. There are some positive signs. The Applicant has received treatment for her mental health condition although she has demonstrated some unreliability in abiding by her medication regime. She also claims to have abstained from methamphetamine use while in prison and detention and has undertaken at least one rehabilitation course. However, her abstinence is untested in the community.
4. The evidence does not show that the Applicant has significant protective factors available to her in the community. While she has some prospects of obtaining employment her mental health condition has required the appointment of a guardian to deal with health and legal matters. On the basis of the evidence presented, it seems the Applicant is largely dependent on the support of her mother. This support was previously available at the time of her earlier offending.
5. Having regard to these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a significant risk the Applicant will reoffend if released into the community.
6. The risk includes the prospect of threatened or actual violence and/or theft against individual members of the community and general anti-social behaviour in the form of disregard for court orders, driving laws and involvement in drug-related activity threatening the integrity of the community's law enforcement regime. These risks are very serious and if the Applicant's offending is repeated it would threaten physical, psychological and financial harm to members of the Australian community.
7. The protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110 and paragraph 8.1(1) identifies the safety of the Australian community as the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.

1. There is no evidence that this is a relevant consideration in the Applicant's case.

The Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3 of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers:

(1) ... must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) ... must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

2. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The Applicant arrived in Australia on 4 September 1997, when she was 11 years old. Movement records confirm that apart from a return visit to New Zealand from March to December 2001 she has lived continually in Australia, a period of 28 years.[53]
2. The Applicant attended primary and secondary school in Queensland.
3. The Applicant's mother and her two sisters, live in Queensland. Her mother lives in Brisbane and supports the Applicant. She has been appointed the Applicant's guardian and has offered to provide her with accommodation in her home if she is released into the community.
4. The Applicant has 8 children, 3 of whom are adults and 5 minor children.[54] All of whom are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely_._ The Applicant currently does not have custody of her minor children, all of whom are under the care of the Queensland Department of Child Safety.
5. The Applicant's mother stated in her evidence that if the Applicant is sent back to New Zealand '..it would have a terrible impact on me. Because I know that she will not be able to cope and I cannot help her from here.'[55] She added that:

..it would have a ripple effect on her children for the rest of their lives. It is bad enough for these kids to be ripped away from their parents for reasons they have been, but to know that Australia deported their mum who they now are old enough to understand is unwell would have a devastating and lasting impact on them.[56]

1. The Applicant's Personal Circumstances Form states she has 15 uncles and aunts in Australia; 25 nieces and nephews; and 30 cousins,[57] but there is limited evidence before the Tribunal about the nature and strength of the Applicant's ties to these family members.
2. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has strong and enduring familial ties to the Australian community, although there is limited evidence of her ties more generally and of any positive contribution she may have made to the community.
3. In summary the Applicant is a long-standing resident who arrived in Australia at a young age. It was some nine years before she began offending but she has an extensive criminal record. There is little evidence that she has made a positive contribution to the community, but she has strong familial ties. Having regard to these matters the Tribunal attributes moderate weight in favour of revocation to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. This is a primary consideration under Direction 110.

Best Interests of Minor Children affected by the Decision

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers must make a determination about whether refusal under section 501 or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. In considering the best interests of the child, paragraph 8.4(4) requires specific factors to be considered. The consideration of the factors relevant in this case are set out below:

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 (including whether an existing Court order restricts 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 child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact 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; > > h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

3. The Applicant has identified five minor children whose best interests arise for consideration under paragraph 8.4 of the Direction: XL age 17; S-M aged 14; JJ aged 13; S aged 11; A aged 10.[58]
4. In her Personal Circumstances Form (PCF) the Applicant identified JS as the father of each of the children.
5. The Queensland Department of Child Safety reported that the Applicant lived with JS for 12 years in an extremely violent relationship.
6. The Applicant's mother gave evidence that the Applicant and her ex-partner JS lived together in a domestic relationship with their five children until JS left the relationship to take up with a new partner. The Applicant then had custody of the five children until she became 'unwell' and was admitted to a mental health facility in about 2017. JS and his new partner then assumed care and custody of the five children.
7. Child Safety reported that the children were subsequently removed from JS and his partner due to their drug and alcohol use and extreme neglect and violence towards the children in their care. The children were placed in foster care. The child safety plans for each of the children appended to the Applicant's response to the RSFIC confirm the Applicant's ongoing participation in the development of case plans for each of the children.[59] The Applicant stated in her PCF that before they were taken into care she saw the children every weekend and holiday.[60]
8. Child Safety has confirmed they will be seeking an application for an initial two-year order of care for the children in relation to their father and are keen to work with the Applicant to enable the children to retain contact and eventually return to the care of a biological parent. An email from a Child Safety Officer to the Applicant's representative dated 10 June 2025 states:

The children's child protection orders are still before the court, with the next court date being 19 June 2025, where we hope to have the orders finalised. The orders we are seeking will be Short Term Custody to the Chief Executive for 2 years.[61]

1. The Applicant stated in her written statement that her children would most likely run away from home if she receives a non-revocation decision[62] she said her children are already stressed and it would impact their mental health.[63] An email sent on 24 April 2024, from Christine Wells - Child Safety Officer Morayfield Child Safety Service Centre stated that on learning that the Applicant would be deported and return to New Zealand, the Applicant's two eldest children self-harmed. The email states:

As discussed the children of [Applicant] are heavily impacted as a result of Maternal family delivering false information regarding [Applicant]. This information included news that [Applicant] would be deported and return to New Zealand in 2 weeks time and the children were told that they would never see their mother ..again.

This resulted in the two eldest children XL and S-M self-harming, refusing to go to school and reporting serious mental health instability.[64]

1. Given the vulnerable position of the children and the evidence of the extreme reaction of the two eldest children the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the Applicant remain in Australia and that they retain the possibility that the Applicant can manage her mental health and substance abuse problems satisfactorily so as to regain custody and resume a parental role in their lives.
2. The Tribunal also notes that Child Safety records indicate that the five children are indigenous Australians, their father being a First Nations man.[65] Given the current care arrangements, there is no realistic prospect of the children needing to leave Australia if the Applicant were removed to New Zealand as was the case in QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.[66] However, the Applicant's representative asserted that the impact of non-revocation on the children is greater because of their status as indigenous Australians.

The deep cultural ties that indigenous children have to kinship, culture and land are well documented. The role of an indigenous parent has been acknowledged by the Tribunal and decision makers. [Applicant]'s children are biologically Maori and First Nations Australian. The loss of their mother would ensure they lose their cultural connection to Maori as well as their mother. The consequence of this is that they will not see their mother until they are adults. A permanent physical reunification with their mother; if she is offshore, is made more unlikely by their connection to land as Indigenous Australians.[67]

1. The Tribunal accepts that this is a relevant consideration to which it is required to have regard.[68]
2. The best interests of minor children is a primary consideration under Direction 110. While the prospect of the Applicant regaining custody of the children and playing a parental role in their lives is limited, the importance for the children of having some hope for their future relationship with their mother warrants this consideration being given significant weight.

1. Paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

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

(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;

c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;

d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or

e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community

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.

1. The majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court has explained that paragraph 11.3 of the former Direction 65, which mirrors the wording of paragraphs 8.5(1) and (2) of Direction 110:

[75] ... should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasizes that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.

[76] The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion.[69]

1. The Applicant has engaged in serious criminal conduct, including conduct specifically referred to in paragraph 8.5(2), namely crimes of a violent nature against women.
2. The deemed expectation of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 is that a non-citizen who engages in such conduct should not be allowed to remain in Australia. This expectation applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community: paragraph 8.5(3). The Tribunal is satisfied that the expectation of the Australian community is that the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should not be revoked.
3. The expectation of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110. Whether or not it is appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation is a matter to be determined having regard also to each of the other considerations. In weighing each of the considerations the Tribunal attributes substantial weight to the expectation of the Australian community in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - PARAGRAPH 9 OF PART 2 OF DIRECTION 110

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) requires decision-makers to 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 that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.

1. In this case the Applicant does not claim that her circumstances enliven Australia's non-refoulement obligations and the circumstances do not suggest such a claim.
2. On the current facts, the immediate consequence of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Visa is that the Applicant will be liable for removal from Australia to New Zealand as soon as reasonably practicable, and pending removal, will remain in immigration detention under section 198 of the Act. The Tribunal also notes that once removed the Applicant will be subject to indefinite exclusion from Australia.[70]
3. The consequences of removal for the Applicant are matters which form the subject of other considerations under Direction 110. However, the legal consequences of deciding not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa do carry their own adverse impact on the Applicant. The Tribunal cannot say with any certainty how events may develop if revocation is refused. However, it can be expected that the Applicant will be subjected to a further period of immigration detention depriving her of her liberty. Depending on the legal processes that may ensue the period of detention may be extended. While incarceration in an immigration facility is a detrimental consequence in itself, its significance is exacerbated by the Applicant's vulnerability and her serious mental health condition. It can reasonably be anticipated that further detention will have an adverse effect on the Applicant's psychological health. If she is deported her forced removal from Australia is likely to exact a significant emotional toll.
4. These matters are considerations which favour revocation. While they are an expected consequence of the application of the law, they nevertheless warrant some moderate weight.

(1) Decision-makers 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:

b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

1. any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant would not face any substantial language or cultural barriers in establishing herself in New Zealand.
2. There is no evidence that she would have any social, medical or economic support in New Zealand beyond that provided by the social welfare system available to all New Zealand citizens. The Applicant moved to Australia 28 years ago. Many of her extended family and all of her immediate family live in Australia, other than one half-brother with whom she has had no contact , her grandparents who are old and not interested in making contact, and her father from whom she and her mother and sisters fled to Australia to escape domestic violence.[71]
3. The Applicant is 39 years of age. She suffers from a significant mental health condition and has had cervical cancer for which she underwent chemotherapy and surgery,[72] she has also had a long-standing substance abuse issue.
4. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant has significant and ongoing mental health issues that require treatment and her removal to New Zealand would likely interfere with her current arrangements for medication. However, the Respondent asserts that New Zealand has a similar health care system to that in Australia, and there is no reason the Applicant - with appropriate assistance and guidance - will not have available to her all medical support that would be available to any New Zealand citizen.
5. The Respondent, at the request of the Tribunal, confirmed that the New Zealand Government's Department of Corrections website includes information on New Zealand's Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 which provides for New Zealanders who have been sentenced to more than one year in an overseas prison and who have been recently released from detention before returning to New Zealand to be subject to supervision by Community Corrections under what is called a Returning Offenders Order. The website indicates that returnees subject to such orders are met by staff from Community Corrections upon arrival for the purpose of assessing the returnee's current situation and immediate needs. The website claims that Community Corrections will assist returnees with accessing benefits and employment and will assist in finding suitable short-term accommodation. The website adds that if the returnee no longer has friends or family in New Zealand a probation officer will work with the returnee to establish social support networks.[73]
6. The Applicant's representative submitted that it is beyond the Applicant's ability for her:

... to be able to navigate her arrival in New Zealand; without the support of her guardian, in order to engage with, airport police, New Zealand police, community corrections, Work and Income and then charities such as Te Pā in order to access services. She would need to advocate for herself regarding her mental health and medical requirements. In addition to these issues she would be outside of the relevant State Mental Health Treatment Orders which provide for regular medication.

1. While the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is likely to have some support upon arrival in New Zealand under the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 and would have access to a similar health care system in New Zealand the Respondent's assertions understate the extent of the detriments faced by the Applicant.
2. The word 'health' in paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction is understood to mean any aspect of a person's physical wellbeing and includes 'the overall state of a person's fitness and condition, including underlying health issues and ongoing effects of any past injury.'[74]
3. The Applicant's mental health condition has resulted in her mother being appointed as her guardian. In making the appointment QCAT has accepted that she is not capable of making proper decisions about her legal affairs and her own health. Under s12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) QCAT may appoint a guardian for a personal matter if satisfied that the person has impaired capacity for the matter and is likely to do something in relation to the matter that involves, or is likely to involve, unreasonable risk to the person's health, welfare or property and without an appointment the person's needs will not be adequately met or their interests will not be adequately protected. The appointment of the Applicant's mother as guardian for health and legal matters by QCAT is sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant lacks capacity to make decisions at least in those areas.[75]
4. The appointment of a guardian for the Applicant has been made in the context of a troubled life in which the Applicant has experienced domestic violence, has lost the custody of her children, has had a significant substance abuse problem, has committed multiple crimes and been imprisoned, and has experienced period of homelessness. Having regard to this background and the appointment of the guardian, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant lacks the capacity to effectively function in the New Zealand community without the support of her mother. There is no evidence that there is anyone with a personal connection to the Applicant who would be able to assume that role if she is returned to New Zealand.
5. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that if the Applicant is removed to New Zealand she is likely to experience considerable difficulty in establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country and she may in fact be incapable of doing so.
6. While this is not a primary consideration under Direction 110 it nevertheless warrants substantial weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires:

Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

1. There is no evidence that the removal of the Applicant from Australia would have any significant impact on Australian business interests or would compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration no weight.

1. The considerations specifically referred to in paragraph 9 are not exclusive. The Tribunal is not limited in considering other relevant matters and has a broad discretion to do so.[76].
2. The Applicant submits that the Applicant's medical condition and her extreme vulnerability are considerations which outweigh other considerations in favour of non-revocation. This claim having been raised the Tribunal is required to identify and evaluate it.[77]
3. The evidence stablishes that the Applicant is a vulnerable person. She has limited employment prospects. She suffers from a serious mental illness which requires her to maintain an ongoing medication regime which she has struggled to maintain. She has been required to undergo several recent periods of hospitalisation. She has a history of substance abuse. She has experienced domestic violence. The seriousness of her mental health condition has resulted in her losing custody of her children. It has been found necessary to subject her to a Treatment Authority under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld), to allow for the involuntary treatment of her mental illness. Her mother has been appointed as her guardian in relation to her health and legal affairs and has had to become actively involved in the management of her treatment. The Applicant has not had to deal with issues related to her mental health and her general living needs for the last two or so years as she has been in custody, subject to supervision and with access to the institutions' medical facilities.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's vulnerabilities mean she is ill-equipped to cope by herself with forced removal to a country in which she has no personal connection and no support. The Applicant has demonstrated that even in a setting with which she is familiar and where she has the support of her mother and wider family she has struggled to function in the community. There is no person identified in New Zealand who could replace the Applicant's mother as her guardian.
5. The Applicant's mother expressed the view that if the Applicant is removed to New Zealand:

.. she would not cope alone, she will become homeless and will end up in company that will ensure she is in danger...The impact on [Applicant] would be disastrous...[78]

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is a significant risk the Applicant will not cope with the management of her mental health condition in New Zealand without the support available to her in Australia and especially the support provided by her mother. The risk includes the possibility that she will resort to drug use and other forms of destructive behaviour and that she will be unable to maintain a stable lifestyle resulting in unemployment and homelessness. Given these risks, her forced removal from Australia represents a harsh and unreasonable outcome for the Applicant.
2. The objective considerations set out in Direction 110 do not preclude the Tribunal from considering humanitarian aspects of the consequences of its decision. The risk of serious damaging consequences for the health and wellbeing of the Applicant if removed to New Zealand is a consideration in favour of revoking the cancellation of her Visa and warrants substantial weight.

1. In Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[79] North ACJ elaborated on how to approach the exercise of the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act:

The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation. If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view.

1. Weighing the factors for and against revocation requires the Tribunal to give both primary and other considerations 'appropriate weight.'[80] Paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides guidance on how relevant considerations are to be assessed. It states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, but one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
2. There are two primary considerations weighing strongly in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.
3. First, there is a significant risk the Applicant will reoffend if released into the community. The risk includes the prospect of threatened or actual violence and/or theft against individual members of the community and general anti-social behaviour in the form of disregard for court orders, driving laws and involvement in drug-related activity threatening the integrity of the community's law enforcement regime. These risks are very serious and threaten physical, psychological and financial harm to members of the Australian community.
4. The protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110 and paragraph 8.1(1) identifies the safety of the Australian community as the highest priority of the Australian Government.
5. Secondly, the Applicant has engaged in serious criminal conduct, including crimes of a violent nature against women. The deemed expectation of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 is that because of this conduct the Applicant should not be allowed to remain in Australia.
6. While these considerations weigh strongly against revocation there are significant considerations which favour it. Of these, two are primary considerations.
7. First, the Applicant is a long-standing resident who arrived in Australia at a young age. She has strong familial ties to the country. While the weight to be given to this consideration is diminished by the Applicant's criminal conduct and the absence of any evidence of a positive contribution to the community, it still warrants moderate weight.
8. Secondly, the Applicant is the mother of five minor children who are currently in state care having experienced domestic violence from their father. They are vulnerable children. It is in their best interests that the Applicant remain in Australia so that they retain the possibility that the Applicant can manage her mental health and substance abuse problems satisfactorily so that she can regain custody and resume a parental role in their lives. This consideration warrants significant weight.
9. In addition, there are other considerations which relate directly to the Applicant's serious mental health issues.
10. The Applicant has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia characterized by persecutory and somatic delusions, auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, disinhibition and aggression. She is currently treated with antipsychotic medication but has not always been compliant and has recently been hospitalised on several occasions with acute psychotic relapses. She has been subject to a Treatment Authority under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld), which allows for the involuntary treatment of her mental illness, and her mother has been awarded guardianship in respect of her health and legal affairs.
11. The legal consequences of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa will involve the Applicant in further incarceration in immigration detention under section 198 of the Act pending her removal to New Zealand and subsequent indefinite exclusion from Australia. While incarceration is a detrimental consequence in itself, its significance is exacerbated by the Applicant's vulnerability and her serious mental health condition. It can reasonably be anticipated that further detention will have an adverse effect on the Applicant's psychological health and her deportation would be likely to exact a significant emotional toll.
12. The Applicant's mental health condition means that she will face substantial detriments if relocated to New Zealand and without the support of her mother and guardian she is unlikely to be capable of establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
13. The Applicant is plainly ill-equipped to cope with forced removal to a country in which she has no personal connection and no support. Her removal to New Zealand caries the risk of serious damaging consequences for the Applicant's health and wellbeing. To require her to do so is unreasonable and harsh.
14. In weighing up these considerations The Tribunal has also had regard to the principles in paragraphs 5.2 (4), (5) and (6) to conclude that the Applicant warrants a higher level of tolerance for her criminal behaviour. While the Applicant had been on a limited stay visa she has been participating in, or contributing to, the Australian community for some 28 years and has lived in Australia from a very young age. In addition, although her offending raises serious character concerns her moral culpability is substantially mitigated by the influence of her mental illness, her substance dependence and the effect of the domestic violence to which she and her children were exposed.
15. Having regard to paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8) and the circumstances of the Applicant's offending, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant's criminal conduct was so serious, or the harm that would be caused if it was repeated is so serious, that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revocation. The offending in 2006 was very serious, involving an actual assault on two female victims. The court record indicates that the assault was in company and involved several punches being thrown during the course of a robbery. The victim suffered injuries in the nature of 'headaches, anxiety attacks and trust issues.' A further offence in 2023 involved threats but the record does not indicate any actual injury to the victims. Otherwise, the offending mainly involved repeated failures to comply with court orders, minor drug-related offences, theft of relatively small amounts and driving offences. While this conduct was serious its seriousness was as much the result of the frequency and cumulative effect of the offending as the inherent seriousness of the individual charges.
16. The Applicant's past conduct and the significant risk that it will be repeated strongly indicates that her Visa should remain cancelled to protect the community and respect the deemed expectation of the community that she not be allowed to remain in Australia. However, these considerations must be weighed taking into account the fact that the Tribunal is dealing with a vulnerable person whose offending was affected by her mental illness and associated substance abuse and who stands to suffer substantially from her forced relocation to a country in which she has no support. On balance the factors favouring revocation outweigh those against it.
17. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act should be exercised to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa. The correct and preferable decision is to set aside the Reviewable Decision and in substitution revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

Pursuant to section 105(c)(i) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision of the delegate of the Respondent of 30 April 2025 and in substitution revokes the cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (temporary) visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

[11] An independent community organisation which advocates for the human rights of women in the criminal justice system

[13] Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 116 at [64] per Colvin J

[14] See Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1238; (1999) 90 FCR 583 [17].

[19] Minister for Home Affairs v Stower [2020] FCA 407 at [45]- [54]

[20] See PQSM and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 603 at [46]; Re Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47 at [63]; see also BNPB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 730 at [80].

[25] [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 [74], citing the High Court's decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 574-5.

[26] The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1 at [132]

[61] G3 at p.128 - Note: at the time of the Tribunal hearing the outcome of the Court's deliberation was not known to the parties.

[66] [2021] AATA 1

[68] Brownlie v Commonwealth [2023] FCA 435

[69] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [75]-[76]; see also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68; (2023) 297 FCR 662 at [31]- [35].

[70] Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 at [12]- [14] per Feutrill J.

[73] Respondent's Submission regarding New Zealand's Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (RSS)

[74] Holloway v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1126 at [12]

[75] BIF23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 44 at [22]

[76] See _Dunasemant and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affair_s (Migration) [2022] AATA 1967 at [223]

[77] _DBWG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affair_s [2022] FCA 570 at [62] and Edwards and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs Migration [201] AATA 2985

[79] [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].

[80] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 at [23].