Bid to allow victim impact statement at criminal deportation appeal

Victims of crimes committed by foreign nationals should have their say if the perpetrators fight attempts to deport them.

Liberal MP Jason Wood.

Victims of crimes committed by foreign nationals should have their say in legal proceedings if the perpetrators fight attempts to deport them, a parliamentary committee head has argued.

The head of federal parliament’s migration committee called for victims to get the chance to give evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if a visa holder tries to stay in Australia.

After two days of public hearings into visa cancellations on criminal grounds, the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Jason Wood, said he was concerned not enough attention had been paid to victims during merit views by the AAT.

When reviewing a case on character grounds, the AAT must take into account “primary considerations”, such as the risk to the community “should the non-­citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct”.

It can also give “other” consideration to the effect on members of the Australian community, including victims of the person’s criminal behaviour and the relatives of the victim, but this is not given as much weight as the primary consideration.

“I’ve got case after case of murderers and rapists and pedophiles and incest, home invasion, where do those victims fall into this?” Mr Wood, a former detective, said yesterday. “The applicant can invite anyone he wants along to represent him (such as) a community leader, yet the victim isn’t given that same opportunity.”

Australian Human Rights Commission senior lawyer Graeme Edgerton said a visa holder’s risk to the community could help determine whether that person had their visa cancelled, while AHRC Commissioner Rosalind Croucher warned that the AAT’s review process was “not a re-hearing of a criminal matter”.

“The criminal matter is properly considered by a court, vested with criminal jurisdiction, sentencing, adjudication, the verdicts — all of that is properly the province of a criminal court,” she said.

“When it comes to the review in an administrative tribunal, the tribunal can act under guidance as to the kind of matters that it should consider.”

The inquiry into visa cancellations on criminal grounds has sparked interest in New Zealand after Monash University’s submission to the committee detailed three deaths of New Zealanders “associated with (section) 501 visa cancellation decisions”.

New Zealand citizens make up the largest nationality group of persons held in immigration detention: 13 per cent of the total detention population since June 2016, according to the submission.

The Police Federation of Australia, which represents some 62,000 officers, pushed for “all the relevant facts” to be available to assist in the AAT’s decision-making “if the community is to have confidence in the AAT process”.

There were 1900 visa refusals and cancellations, most of them mandatory, on character grounds in 2016-17, up from 705 in 2014-15.

Applications to the AAT for a review of character-related visa decisions increased from 77 in 2015-16 to 183 in 2016-17, of which 168 were finalised. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has power to set aside AAT decisions and substitute them with a cancellation or refusal.