The Administrative Appeals Tribunal saves armed robber from deportation
AN armed robber has been saved from deportation because a senior Administrative Appeals Tribunal member said he believes that’s what “fair-minded” Australians would want him to do.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
AN armed robber has been saved from deportation because a senior Administrative Appeals Tribunal member said he believes that’s what “fair-minded” Australians would want him to do.
Teens arrested after robberies organised on social media
Two charged over Box Hill stabbing
AAT deputy president James Constance recently overturned a decision made by a delegate for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, to kick Brazilian Pedro Fernandes out of the country.
He did so despite saying in his written ruling that Fernandes’ conduct to date, “involving as it does violent offending, dishonesty, domestic violence, drug use and an alcohol-related driving offence”, must be regarded as very serious.
MORE AAT STORIES:
Child-rapist priest spared deportation by AAT named
Murderers, rapists and paedophiles spared deportation
“His conduct has been made even more serious by his repeated disregard for the law and the commission of a further offence while he was on parole for the robbery,” he said.
Fernandes, 27, was jailed for four years in 2013 for the armed robbery.
He and an accomplice forced a manager at Sydney’s Randwick Golf Club to unlock the safe so they could steal the contents.
Delegates for Mr Dutton have twice decided that cancelling Fernandes’ visa was the correct thing to do, the first time in June last year and again in December after Fernandes made representations to Mr Dutton seeking a revocation of the earlier decision.
But last week Mr Constance overturned the deportation decision and restored Fernandes’ visa. One of the reasons he gave was the adverse effect deporting Fernandes would have on his former wife and their daughter, aged seven.
He also used his written decision to criticise the media.
“It is important that the views of a small but vocal section of media commentators not influence this assessment,” he wrote. “I am not satisfied that their views reflect those of the Australian community.
“In Mr Fernandes’ case, I am satisfied that fair-minded members of the Australian community, who are appraised of all the facts of this matter and who understand the applicable law, particularly the requirements of Direction number 65, would not expect that he be deported,” he said.
“Rather I am of the view that the Australian community would expect he be given one more chance to show that he can be a productive member of society and provide the care and support his family deserves.”
Direction 65 in the Migration Act says one primary consideration when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation is “the best interests of minor children in Australia”.
But another is “protection of the community from criminal or other serious conduct”.
