…the AAT is in effect, sentencing Australians to be victims of further crimes.

The AAT is a serial offender.

According to the AIC[2]:

“At 36 months after release, the estimated reoffending rate for the unsupervised group (70.3%) is still significantly higher than the reoffending rate for the supervised group (65.7%)”.

In 2017, one criminal reoffended while in prison, i.e. while supervised:

“Iraqi refugee ET, 50, murdered his brother-in-law in Sydney’s Fairfield. Sentenced to 18 years in jail, he was disciplined 13 times while in prison for acts or threats of violence. The AAT overturned his deportation order, finding he had a ‘negligible risk of re-offending’, so shouldn’t be separated from his adult son – even though he played no role in his upbringing”.

In 2017, the AAT has effectively sentenced someone in Australia to be a victim of this criminal in future.

  • What controls did the AAT specify that would prevent him from reoffending?
  • Given that he has already reoffended in prison, the closest supervision possible under law, the chance of him reoffending is 100%.

This criminal had 365 chances. The AAT gave him one more:

“New Zealand-born CJS, a career criminal and drug addict with 365 convictions, had his deportation order overturned by the AAT. ‘I know this is the last chance. I’m too old to keep offending. If I can stay, I will not let you down’, he said at the time of the appeal. But Stafford was unable to stick to his word and in 2015, broke into a St Kilda home and raped a young woman. Stafford is now awaiting sentencing”[1].

“AAT senior member John Handley said in his ruling in 2013 that what Stafford said ‘will inevitably be read back to him, if he reoffends and if he decides to contest an application in the future to cancel his visa'”[2].

Did this “senior member” pay any regard to the sentencing notes?

“42 You were born on 25 July 1974 and are presently aged 42 years. You have admitted a criminal record which covers 31 pages from 21 October 1991 until 19 August 2015. Although none of the offences concern sexual charges, there is a considerable array of burglary, obtaining property by deception, thefts from shops, thefts from motor vehicles, criminal damage, assaulting police, making threat to kill, intentionally causing injury, going equipped to steal and possessing drugs of dependence. In these circumstances, the principles of specific deterrence loom large, with respect to the aggravated burglary charge”[3].

In the victim impact statement, the victim wrote that[3]:

Now, she has lost all sense of security, and that continues until this day. She felt that her home was no longer safe and it was a place of terror and extreme distress. She found she was so traumatised, she could not make any decisions and could not sleep. When she did sleep, she had nightmares with sights of your angry face sneering at her. She would get up every few hours to check that the door was secure even though she knew the house was locked. For the first four months after these events, she slept in the powder room curled up on the floor as there was no room to stretch. It took her a year to attempt to sleep in her old room. For a long time she lost her ability to work full time and found that she was unable to talk about the traumatic events. She felt that she lost her self-esteem and, particularly as you had initially pleaded not guilty, she felt that you were implying she was a liar, which made her feel that “the wound [was] open and a source of fear for 19 months of [my] life”.

This organisation is unelected, is apparently ignoring repeat offending, sentencing and application of the law deporting serious offenders from Australia precisely so that they cannot reoffend and harm Australians.

The AAT is a serial reoffender[5]:
“Lowlife wife killer, gangsters and domestic violence thugs are among dozens of foreign criminals allowed to remain in Australia”

Some of Australia’s most violent foreign criminals and drug thugs are allowed to remain in in the country after getting a second chance because they’ve ‘found god’ or suffered childhood trauma.
Several non-citizens and asylum seekers, including a wife killer, carjacker, drug trafficker, a bikie and a domestic violence thug, were deported from Australia by Immigration Minister Alex Hawke.
But they have now been allowed to stay in the country after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned the government’s decision.

According to the AAT’s About page, AAT jurisdiction is limited:

“We can only review a decision if a law states that the decision can be reviewed by the AAT”.

Including “more than 400 Commonwealth Acts and legislative instruments”, including “migration and refugee visas and visa-related decisions”.

Here is the problem:
Decisions should be reviewed purely on citizenship grounds. The AAT should not be superseding sentencing and parole decisions by the judiciary.


  1. Immigrant who raped woman should have been deported but AAT gave him ‘one last chance’
  2. Administrative Appeals Tribunal under fire for allowing violent overseas criminals to stay
  3. DPP v Stafford [2017] VCC 717 (7 June 2017)
  4. Parole supervision and reoffending
  5. Lowlife wife killer, gangsters and domestic violence thugs are among dozens of foreign criminals allowed to remain in Australia

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *