Federal Court of Australia

French v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 1610

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER ACJ:

1    Before the Court is an Amended Originating Application for Review of a Migration Decision dated 8 October 2025 (Application). In his application Mr French seeks judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 16 December 2024 to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to revoke Mr French’s Special Category Class TY subclass 444 visa. The ground on which Mr French relies is as follows:

1.    The Tribunal’s findings on the Applicant’s risk of relapsing, committing family violence in the future and that the Applicant’s hardships in relocating to the UK were temporary were based on illogical or irrational processes of reasoning.

2    It is convenient to examine the background to the present proceeding before considering this ground of review.

BACKGROUND

3    The applicant, Mr French, was born on 11 October 2002. He is a citizen of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. He came to Australia on 12 August 2013 aged 10 years of age.

4    At all relevant times Mr French has held a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.

5    On 31 January 2023 Mr French was convicted in the District Court of Queensland at Beenleigh of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and grievous bodily harm, whilst excessively speeding. For that offence he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years. Sentencing remarks detailed that Mr French was under the influence of drugs at the time of the dangerous driving offence.

6    As a result of his conviction and sentence Mr French did not satisfy the character test (as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)) as required under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act. His visa was mandatorily cancelled on 26 May 2023 by a delegate under s 501(3A) (cancellation decision). On 23 September 2024 a delegate of the Minister made a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act that the cancellation decision should not be revoked (revocation decision), in the following terms:

The following is my decision under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) in relation to the representations about revocation of the cancellation of Connor Elliot FRENCH’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.

…

(c) Mr FRENCH has made representations, in accordance with the invitation given to him under s501CA(3), about revocation of the cancellation decision. I am not satisfied that Mr FRENCH passes the character test (as defined by s501). Nor am I satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. Accordingly, the power in s501CA(4) is not enlivened and Mr FRENCH’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa remains cancelled. My reasons are set out in the attached Statement of Reasons.

7    The delegate considered whether there was “another reason” why the decision to cancel Mr French’s visa should be revoked for the purpose of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, having regard to Direction 110 Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110). In summary, the delegate concluded:

    In relation to the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community:

•    Driving offences causing death and grievous bodily harm can be viewed very seriously;

•    Mr French was driving excessively at the time of an accident which resulted in one passenger being killed and the other being seriously injured;

•    A blood test of Mr French shortly after the accident revealed cannabis in his system;

•    Mr French had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, which was a further indication of the seriousness of his offending;

•    Mr French associated with drug-takers in prison, and took drugs there. His ability to avoid drugs in the community is untested. The delegate was concerned that once Mr French was presented with life stressors or challenges such as not having a driver’s license or the demise of another relationship, he could return to drugs to deal with his unresolved issues;

•    Although Mr French had been drug-free for almost two months as at January 2024, because Mr French used drugs in prison the delegate was unable to find that Mr French was rehabilitated from drugs;

•    Mr French had many character references from family members, his partner and others;

•    Mr French had taken positive steps in his rehabilitation, but plainly had a long way to go;

•    Mr French had demonstrated insight as to the seriousness of his actions, and was remorseful;

•    Significant weight against revocation should be accorded to this consideration.

    There was no evidence of family violence conduct.

    The strength, nature and duration of Mr French’s ties to Australia weighed very strongly in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation in this case.

    Some weight should be attributed to Mr French’s relationship with his minor godson.

    Significant weight against revocation of the visa should be attributed to the expectations of the Australian community that non-citizens obey Australian laws in Australia.

    Mr French would experience only limited linguistic or cultural difficulties if he were to return to either the UK or New Zealand.

    Both the UK and New Zealand have healthcare systems comparable to Australia. Mr French has a grandmother and an uncle in the UK, and no family in New Zealand to support him. Mr French would face practical and emotional hardship upon a return to the UK or New Zealand, in particular New Zealand.

    Mr French’s former employer has offered him a position of employment should he be able to remain in Australia and accordingly some weight in favour of revocation should be given to the effect on Australian business interests of a non-revocation decision.

    On balance, taking into account all relevant factors, the delegate was not satisfied there was another reason why the decision to cancel Mr French’s visa should be revoked.

TRIBUNAL DECISION

8    The reasons of the Tribunal are lengthy and detailed.

9    In determining whether the cancellation decision concerning Mr French’s visa should be revoked, the Tribunal referred to the legislation and Direction 110.

Primary consideration 1

10    The Tribunal noted Primary consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community. The Tribunal noted that at the date of the offence (31 July 2021), Mr French was aged 18 years, and had four speeding convictions for speeding more than 40 kilometres per hour over the speed limit. The Tribunal recounted the events culminating in the vehicle crash wherein one passenger was killed and one seriously injured. The Tribunal at [33] concluded that Mr French’s conduct which gave rise to the convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm whilst excessively speeding on 31 July 2021 and driving on 31 July 2021 whilst a relevant drug was present in his blood, being the holder of a provisional licence, was very serious conduct for the purposes of para 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 as it involved a total disregard for the safety of the passengers in the car as well as himself. The Tribunal also concluded at [34] that the conduct giving rise to the second conviction for driving on 22 October 2022 while a relevant drug was present in his blood, being the holder of a provisional licence, was very serious conduct for the purpose of Direction 110.

11    At [35]-[38] the Tribunal described Mr French’s traffic offending between 11 May 2020 and 22 October 2022. The Tribunal noted that on 22 October 2022, one year and two months after 31 July 2021, the police intercepted Mr French driving and a roadside drug test returned a positive result. The Tribunal at [39] rejected the proposition that Mr French did not understand before the 31 July 2021 crash, or in the 12 months or more after such a serious crash causing death and serious injury, that there was increased risk to safety when speeding, failing to wear a seat belt and driving under the influence of a drug. The Tribunal found at [41]-[42] that the conduct of Mr French in respect of the events of 31 July 2021 and thereafter in respect of subsequent traffic offences was very serious conduct.

12    At [44] the Tribunal referred to domestic violence and said:

44.    I have dealt with the incident of domestic violence the Applicant admitted to on 30 May 2021 under Primary Consideration 2. The result of the incident was that a protection order was issued. No criminal proceedings were commenced in relation to this incident. For the reasons set out under Primary Consideration 2, though domestic violence incidents per se are very serious, I do not regard the specific act of domestic violence that the Applicant committed on 30 May 2021 to be very serious conduct, but rather an instance of serious conduct for the purposes of the Direction.

13    In relation to the risk to the Australian community, should Mr French commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal said:

48.    The Applicant describes himself as a ‘car enthusiast’, participating in skidding, drifting and popping tyres. He has previously driven a car while under the influence of cannabis and methamphetamine, which impact upon his ability to make sound decisions, particularly in relation to safe driving practices. His use of illegal substances has encouraged risk taking behaviour and dangerous behaviour while driving. The Applicant’s addiction to illicit substances spans 9 years for cannabis and 8 years for methamphetamine. He is 22.

49.     The Applicant’s addiction to illegal substances has contributed to the commission of all driving offences and an act of domestic violence, which occurred at a highly emotional time for him. Human relationships can be very complicated. It is possible that the Applicant may commit another act of domestic violence if he uses illegal substances while in the community.

…

52.    The Applicant’s addiction to illegal substances continued through to his incarceration. The Applicant said he did not use methamphetamine while in prison. Instead he sourced buprenorphine. On 19 April 2023 the Applicant was found to have committed a custodial breach, being in possession of a prohibited article (buprenorphine in the form of Subutex strips and a syringe), which resulted in his transfer from Palen Creek to Woodford Correctional Centre.

14    The Tribunal noted that Mr French had seen medical practitioners including a psychologist in September 2023, and that a medical report was prepared by Dr Maddison Riachi on 15 December 2023. The Tribunal noted:

55.    …She determined, from a risk and mitigation perspective, that it was unlikely that the Applicant ‘would engage in the same offending behaviour given the traumatic nature of his crime’. By the time Dr Riachi interviewed the Applicant, he had reached the realisation that he had an addiction that he needed to address his drug addiction (at least by participating in the OSTP program). Dr Riachi considered he had developed insight into his offending.

56.     Dr Riachi also recommended the Applicant seek treatment to address 2 key risk factors:

(a) his substance abuse; and

(b) his Adjustment Disorder.

57.    Dr Riachi attached a relapse prevention plan to her report. High risk situations identified by the Applicant that influenced him to use drugs in the past included:

(a)     hanging around an older crowd who were using drugs;

(b)     experiencing emotions of heartbreak, grief, boredom, feeling like he wanted to celebrate or party, tiredness, being unmotivated;

(c)     events such as parties, birthdays, special occasions or events, fishing, getting home from work,

(d)     drinking at parties could lead to some bad choices.

58.    The Applicant identified stress as the early warning sign for relapse, as well as feeling like he cannot cope without drugs, as an early warning sign.

15    The Tribunal was not able to conclude on the material before it that Mr French had ever suffered from ADHD (at [61]), despite having exhibited symptoms as referred to by Dr Riachi and Dr Freeman.

16    The Tribunal noted the opinions of Mr French’s treating medical practitioners that Mr French had an adjustment disorder (at [62]), had commenced drug use at age 13 and cannabis use at age 14, followed by methamphetamine use at age 16 which quickly led to addiction (at [63]). At [65] the Tribunal noted the factors affecting Mr French’s risk of recidivism as:

(a)     achieving abstinence from illicit substances. While the Applicant has a relapse plan, he noted he needed to be vigilant of relapse for an extended period of time, as methamphetamine dependency is usually chronic and requires lasting aftercare;

(b)     avoiding contact with drug associates;

(c)     developing a secure support network;

(d)     remaining under the care of a general practitioner to monitor his mental health treatment needs and provide appropriate referrals to manage his trauma-related symptoms.

17    Mr French’s medical practitioner Dr Freeman gave evidence noted by the Tribunal, assessing the likelihood of analogous recidivism as unlikely, but acknowledged that “substance-based relapse may create broader vulnerabilities associated with impulsivity/non-consequential thinking” (at [67]). At [68] Dr Freeman identified protective factors as being:

(a) family support – in particular his partner and his immediate family;

(b) willingness to engage in ongoing rehabilitative interventions;

(c) insight into his mental health treatment needs;

(d) vocational opportunities; and

(e) a dislike of incarceration.

18    The Tribunal referred at [69] to the terms of Mr French’s parole order, and also noted the view of Dr Freeman that Mr French having employment with his father and accommodation with his family would assist to provide a stable environment.

19    The Tribunal noted that Mr French was to be without a driver’s licence until 2027, however noted that it did not prevent him from driving a car if he relapsed and commenced consuming drugs (at [70]). The Tribunal also noted at [71]-[72] that despite the terms of Mr French’s parole and risk of deportation, such issues did not eliminate the risk of relapse and reoffending.

20    The Tribunal accepted at [74] that Mr French had been very remorseful after the crash on 31 July 2021, but that did not prevent him from continuing to drive in a dangerous manner.

21    At [76] the Tribunal said:

76.    The Applicant’s young age at the time of offending was also raised as a primary factor contributing to his offending. His traffic offences were committed between the ages of 17 and 21. He was 18 when he drove a car which killed a person and seriously injured himself and another person. Dr Freeman noted that the tendency of younger males who experience difficulties recognising and responding to risk is often linked to the prefrontal cortex that does not fully develop until the age of 25. The Applicant is presently 22. If the lack of development of the prefrontal cortex is a factor leading to a risk of offending, the Applicant still has 3 years of development before this risk factor abates.

22    The Tribunal noted at [77]-[79] that Mr French had participated in rehabilitation courses, and that his family members had participated in courses to assist his rehabilitation.

23    At [84] the Tribunal found that the risk of Mr French relapsing was a very real risk, which also meant there was a risk of him reoffending if released into the Australian community. The Tribunal continued:

84.    …While support structures (described in this case as ‘scaffolding’) can be put in place to attempt to keep the Applicant on the path to total abstinence from drugs, ultimately it is the Applicant himself who must abstain from consuming illicit drugs. The Applicant is only 22 years of age and that remains a vulnerable age for young males whose prefrontal cortex is still forming in terms of risk taking. If he is permitted to rejoin the Australian community he has to deal with the risk of relapse that may occur when he engages in social activities with other persons at events such as parties, birthdays, special occasions or events; and when he experiences emotions of heartbreak, grief, boredom, tiredness and being unmotivated. These are everyday experiences. That very real risk of relapse remains for the Applicant, notwithstanding a commitment to change.

85.     History has shown that cannabis and methamphetamine can affect the Applicant’s cognitive functioning to such a degree that those drugs enable him to engage in risk taking behaviours, including driving a car at speed and driving when under the influence of a drug, even when he is aware of the disastrous effect his conduct can have on others, including death and grievous bodily harm. Given the potential catastrophic harm that can be caused by such reoffending, and given the need for Australians to regularly use roads to travel to work and see family, the risk to the Australian community that exists should the Applicant be released into the community and reoffend, by engaging in traffic offending, is too great a risk to tolerate, even where that risk is described as low.

86.     Primary Consideration 1 therefore weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

Primary Consideration 2

24    After considering para 8.2 of Direction 110 and the concept of family violence, the Tribunal noted:

91.     The Applicant has admitted that on 28 May 2021 he grabbed a mobile phone out of his former girlfriend’s hand, threw it on the ground and damaged it, while she was using the phone to film him in a state of distress.

92.     I find that the Applicant’s ex-girlfriend was a ‘member of the person’s family’ for the purposes of the Direction, as the Applicant had an intimate personal relationship with his ex-girlfriend and that the incident involved domestic violence as defined in the Direction, falling within the nominated example, ‘internally damaging or destroying property’.

93.     The Applicant and his girlfriend had been in a relationship for 2 years and separated 2 weeks prior to the incident on 30 May 2021. The Applicant attended his ex-girlfriend’s home around 4.00pm to recover some personal belongings, property and money. The mother and brother of the ex-girlfriend were also home. By 4.40pm the Applicant was crying as he and his ex-girlfriend argued. The ex-girlfriend pulled out her phone and started recording the Applicant crying. The Applicant grabbed the phone from his ex-girlfriend and threw it on the ground, resulting in damage to the phone, snatching it from her hands without her consent. The ex-girlfriend’s brother called police. There was no other physical altercation. The ex-girlfriend informed the police that she was not fearful of the Applicant. At the time the complaint was made to the police, it was thought that the phone had been destroyed. It was able to be repaired. The police considered it desirable and necessary to issue a protection order in favour of the ex-girlfriend. The Applicant consented to a protection order being issued, which remains in force until 2026.

25    The Tribunal continued:

96.     While the Direction at paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) notes that acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed, are viewed very seriously, I consider the Applicant’s conduct in this instance to be serious, but not very serious. I accept that his decision making that day was affected by his consumption of cannabis and methamphetamine, which on his admission had increased since he and his girlfriend separated.

97.     The Applicant and his friend claimed that the Applicant’s ex-girlfriend had committed acts of domestic violence towards the Applicant to which he had not reacted. Whatever behaviour the Applicant’s girlfriend engaged in towards him (which has not been proven before this Tribunal) is irrelevant to the issue of the admitted act of domestic violence which the Applicant committed on 30 May 2021.

98.    The Applicant submitted the incident was an isolated and aberrant event, occurring during significantly stressful personal circumstances, that was never repeated. I accept this has been the only instance of domestic violence that has been proven. In closing submissions, the Applicant also submitted that as there is no risk of his current relationship with his partner breaking down, there is no risk of family violence. Every relationship has a risk that it will not continue. I do not accept that there is no risk of the Applicant engaging in acts of family violence in the future, particularly if the Applicant relapses into methamphetamine use.

26    The Tribunal found that Primary Consideration 2 weighed slightly in favour of revocation of the cancellation of Mr French’s visa.

Primary Consideration 3

27    After examining material concerning Mr French’s family, the Tribunal concluded:

110.    I find that the Applicant’s immediate family who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely will be adversely impacted by a decision to affirm the non-revocation decision. Taking into account how long the Applicant has resided in Australia and the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, including family and social links, I give this Primary Consideration moderate weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

Primary Consideration 4

28    In summary, the Tribunal noted that Mr French was in the role of “uncle/godfather” to the child of a friend born in 2022, and as a result gave Primary Consideration 4 some weight in favour of the revocation of Mr French’s visa.

Primary Consideration 5

29    At [117] the Tribunal noted that para 8.5(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. It followed that where a non-citizen engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he or she may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. At [118] the Tribunal stated:

118.    Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction says that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are 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 noncitizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind, relevantly:

(a) acts of family violence; or

(b) …

(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) …

(e) …

(f) ...

119.     The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the noncitizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

30    The Tribunal continued:

121.     The Applicant has engaged in one act of family violence. While the offences of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and grievous bodily harm and driving while a relevant drug is present in the blood are not offences listed in paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction, they are very serious crimes as they involve a complete disregard for the safety of innocent persons who need to use roads to travel, which is an essential activity for all Australians.

122.     The Applicant has breached the community's expectation for non-citizens to abide by the law by committing serious offences and, as per paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction, the community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel the visas of noncitizens if they raise serious character concerns through conduct of the type undertaken by the Applicant.

123.     Primary Consideration 5 weighs strongly against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

Other considerations

31    In respect of other considerations, namely the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed, and impact on Australian business interests, the Tribunal afforded them some weight in favour of revocation.

32    The Tribunal also considered the impact of the decision on Mr French’s father, noting that Mr French Snr was a person presently on a five-year visa permitting him to reside in Australia, but did not have the financial capacity to leave his business to help Mr French settle in the UK. The Tribunal gave that other consideration substantial weight in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation.

Conclusion of the Tribunal

33    In conclusion the Tribunal said:

152.     While the Applicant submitted that remaining in Australia would pose the lowest risk for relapse and that the risk of reoffending was bearing in mind the principles outlined in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction:

(a)     the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against revocation;

(b)     family violence committed by the Applicant weighs in favour of revocation, although only marginally so.

(c)     the considerations which weigh in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children and all of the 4 categories of other considerations) do not outweigh the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community.

153.     Ultimately, the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increase. The conduct that the Applicant has previously engaged in and the harm that would be caused by repeating such conduct, is so serious that the risk that it may be repeated (which exists) is in my view, unacceptable.

154.     I am neither satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, nor that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

155.     Application of the Direction therefore favours the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

CONSIDERATION

34    At the hearing Mr Nolan for Mr French submitted, in summary:

    The ground on which Mr French relied was not a “no evidence” ground; it was referable only to illogicality and unreasonableness.

    In accordance with para 54 of Masi-Haini v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] FCAFC 126, if the actual path of reasoning in a decision is infected by legal error, that is enough to have the decision set aside.

    The findings of the Tribunal at [84] concerning whether Mr French has to deal with risk of relapse that may occur when he engages in social activities or experiences emotions were irrational in the sense that they are purely speculative to the extent that:

•    evidence of Dr Freeman concerning the prefrontal cortex of Mr French was relevant to the original offending, not reoffending; and

•    it is unclear how the speculative suggestion that Mr French could attend parties had any relevance to the risk of reoffending.

    Despite the finding of the Tribunal at [80] that there was no risk that at some point in time in the future Mr French may engage in an act of domestic violence, that was completely speculative. The same error appeared at [98].

    The Tribunal’s findings concerning the risk of domestic violence were weighed heavily by the Tribunal against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr French’s visa.

    The finding of the Tribunal at [141] that impediments to Mr French resettling in the United Kingdom were “likely to be temporary and not insurmountable” should be considered in light of paras [44] and [45] in Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225.

35    Mr McGlade for the Minister submitted, in summary:

    The four findings of the Tribunal of which Mr French complained were not critical.

    Illogicality or irrationality requires a very high level of satisfaction.

    As found in Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido [2019] FCAFC 132, once there is some evidence before the decision-maker, it is for the decision-maker (and not the Court) to determine its probative weight and decide whether or not it does, or does not, support a finding.

    If there is overwhelming evidence favouring one conclusion, a finding to the contrary could demonstrate the availability of illogicality.

    Mr French had given evidence that one of his high-risk situations was attending social events and participating in social activities. This was noted in the relapse prevention plan attached by Dr Riachi to her report, which was in turn uplifted by the Tribunal into [84] of its reasons. Events that occurred in the past could logically ground events that can happen in the future.

    In respect of issues relating to the development of Mr French’s prefrontal cortex, and his age:

•    The Tribunal is entitled to make its own evaluation of risk.

•    Even if Dr Freeman said that a factor is no longer a risk factor, the Tribunal would be actually entitled to make a finding that it was.

•    Logically there was evidence to the effect that young males who are 22 years of age do not recognise risk situations well, and are at risk of offending. That logically translates for the applicant in terms of future risk. Further Mr French is still at an age where he is young enough that his prefrontal cortex has not developed such that he does not recognise risk well. This could logically bear on his future offending before he reaches the age of 25.

•    In respect of Mr French’s complaint concerning the findings of risk of family violence, the Tribunal found it was not satisfied that the applicant posed no risk of re-offending in relation to family violence. This was not a positive finding. Further, a finding that a person presented no risk was virtually impossible. Further, even if a non-satisfaction finding required evidence, there was evidence in this case concerning events that have occurred in the past can logically be used to ground findings as to what may occur in the future. In this case Mr French was under the influence of methamphetamine, had an emotional argument with his then-partner, she provoked him by videoing him, and he grabbed her phone and smashed it. There is reason to think that, if the applicant were to face a similar situation in the future, he might engage in similar conduct.

•    In any event, the Court should not read the Tribunal’s findings about not being satisfied with no risk of family violence in isolation, but rather would read those findings as a whole with the rest of the Tribunal’s reasons.
The Tribunal noted at [83] that Mr French’s medical advisor Dr Freeman opined that if Mr French was under the influence of drugs, he could engage in erratic behaviours that could lead to an offence.

•    The Tribunal does not have to give reasons for each finding: Healey v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 295 FCR 210 at [36]; King v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) FCA 766.

•    In respect of the finding of the Tribunal that impediments to resettlement the applicant will face on account of practical, financial and emotional hardship if returned to the United Kingdom are likely to be temporary and not insurmountable:

(i)    Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider possible impediments to removal in the context of the person establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards.

(ii)    The highest Mr French could put his challenge to this issue was that members of his family gave evidence that Mr French would suffer emotional hardship, and it would not be temporary.

(iii)    There is no evidence to the effect that removal from Australia would have a lifelong effect on Mr French. Although the case of Mr French was that there was no suggestion in the evidence that any emotional impact on Mr French was temporary, there was also no suggestion that it was permanent.

(iv)    The Tribunal found that Mr French would face practical, financial and emotional hardship should he be required to return to the United Kingdom, and that those impediments to resettlement are likely to be temporary and not insurmountable.

(v)    Even if the findings of the Tribunal could be construed as saying, “Your emotional hardship will only be temporary,” that was open to the Tribunal. To say that the only reasonable outcome was that Mr French would have permanent emotional hardship was not one that this Court can draw, given the high standard that applies to unreasonableness complaints.

36    The fundamental case of Mr French is that findings of the Tribunal referable to risks of his relapse in offending, his engagement in any other conduct constituting domestic violence, and referable to the duration of hardship Mr French could suffer on resettling in the UK, were illogical and/or unreasonable. A significant difficulty with this line of argument is that the Tribunal is the decision-maker in respect of such issues, and the power of the Court to set aside such decision requires the attainment of a high threshold. The Full Court in Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3; (2022) 289 FCR 21 explained:

[33] The characterisation of a decision (or a state of satisfaction) as legally unreasonable because of illogicality or irrationality is not easily made ....

[34] The task in assessing illogicality is not an exercise in logical dialectic. “Not every lapse of logic will give rise to jurisdictional error. A Court should be slow, although not unwilling, to interfere in an appropriate case”: .... It is the ascertainment, through understanding the approach of the decision-maker and characterising the reasoning process, of whether the decision (or state of satisfaction) is so lacking a rational or logical foundation that the decision (or relevant state of satisfaction) was one that no rational or logical decision-maker could reach, such that it was not a decision (or state of satisfaction) contemplated by the provision in question. Some lack of logic present in reasoning may only explain why a mistake of fact had been made which can be seen to be an error made within jurisdiction. ... [T]he evaluation of whether a decision was made within lawful boundaries is not definitional, but one of characterisation and whether the decision was sufficiently lacking in rational foundation, having regard to the terms, scope and purpose of the statutory source of power, that it cannot be said to be within the range of possible lawful outcomes.

[35] Ultimately, the question is whether the satisfaction of the relevant state of affairs or matter was irrational, illogical or not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds: ... , such that it cannot be said to be possible for the conclusion to be made or the satisfaction reached logically or rationally on the available material. It will then satisfy the characterisation of unjust, arbitrary or capricious.

(emphasis added)

37    These principles have been applied in such cases as Masi-Haini v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] FCAFC 126; (2023) 298 FCR 277 at [51]-[52], EUD24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCAFC 128 at [34] and XRZG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 131 at [64].

38    In the present case I am not satisfied that the detailed findings of the Tribunal challenged by Mr French were such that those findings were not open to the Tribunal on the material before it. In particular:

    That Mr French’s offending took place at a young adult age, and at a time when his prefrontal cortex was still forming in terms of risk taking, was the subject of repeated discussion by the Tribunal by reference to the medical evidence before it: see for example [76] and [84] of the reasons of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found also, however, that because of Mr French’s age, there was a risk that he would continue to engage in risky conduct, leading in turn to further risk of reoffending.

    The findings of the Tribunal concerning the risk of relapse by Mr French into drug-taking and further offending were made against a background of material before the Tribunal including evidence of Mr French himself that he had been a drug-user since early teenage years, he was susceptible to social pressure to drink or use drugs, he had previously associated with persons who condoned or promoted drugs, he was historically influenced to use drugs under high risk situations (including social events), and he had engaged in drug use in prison. The Tribunal also had detailed regard to expert medical evidence including to the effect that Mr French was impulsive and had poor self-regulation (which Mr French himself accepted).

    To the extent that there was evidence that Mr French was at risk of relapse into methylamphetamine use in the future, the Tribunal was unable to rule out the possibility that Mr French could commit an act of domestic violence while under the influence of that or other drugs.

    While there was plainly evidence before the Tribunal that both Mr French and his family members would suffer from the cancellation of his visa, there was also material before the Tribunal supporting a finding that he was a 22-year-old, able-bodied man who, if he relocated to the UK, would be able to source a new psychologist/counsellor, who had a place to live waiting for him (namely, with his grandmother), who would receive some financial support from his family and who had reasonable prospects of obtaining employment (and, failing that, access to welfare payments). As the Minister has submitted, to the extent that Mr French submitted that all of the evidence before the Tribunal would lead any reasonable person to a conclusion that the removal would cause lifelong grief and hardship to a number of people, including him, there was no explanation as to what that evidence was.

39    I also note that the reasons of the Tribunal must be read as a whole, informed by the material before it: see Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [29] per Kirby J.

40    Having regard to the submissions of the parties, and noting that the sole ground of the application before me is that the Tribunal’s findings on the risk of Mr French relapsing and/or committing family violence in the future, and that his hardships in relocating to the UK were temporary, were based on illogical or irrational processes of reasoning on the part of the Tribunal, I find that the application before me is not substantiated. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error, or that the decision under review should be set aside and the matter remitted.

41    The application is dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    18 December 2025