Radmanovic and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 569 (2 August 2010)

Last Updated: 6 August 2010

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 569

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2009/4025

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
	Re		Miroslav Radmanovic

Applicant

And

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Ms N Bell, Senior Member

Date 2 August 2010

Place Sydney

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

....................[sgd].........................
Ms N Bell, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS – IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – REFUSAL OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION – GOOD CHARACTER – REFORMED BEHAVIOUR

Australian Citizenship Act 2007

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms N Bell, Senior Member

1. Miroslav Radmanovic applied for Australian citizenship on 28 February 2009. His application was refused by the Minister’s delegate on 27 July 2009 on the ground that Mr Radmanovic is not of good character. Being of good character is a requirement for eligibility for citizenship under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
2. Of particular importance to the Minister’s view about Mr Radmanovic’s character was his record of convictions as follows:
   • 7 April 1999 – Robbery in Company (2 Counts)
   • 21 September 2006 – Robbery armed with offensive weapon (2 Counts)
   • 16 April 2005 – Common Assault
3. In response, Mr Radmanovic sought to rely on his history of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. These matters and others were addressed in his oral evidence and that of his mother, Mrs Slavika Radmanovic.
4. The sole issue for me to determine in this application is whether
   Mr Radmanovic is of good character. This is not a term that has been defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 the Full Federal Court said:

It should also be observed that the term "good character" is not precise in its denotation. In one sense, it refers to the mental and moral qualities which an individual has. In another sense, it refers to the individual's reputation or repute: see The Oxford English Dictionary, meanings 11, 12 and 13; The Macquarie Dictionary meanings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Necessarily, when decisions are made in Australia under the Act in relation to persons who are overseas, greater attention tends to be given to objective facts and to reputation or repute rather than to a detailed analysis of the person's inherent qualities. I do not suggest that, in the context, "good character" refers to reputation and repute as such. It does not. But criminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.

5. Mr Radmanovic was an enthusiastic, but rather confused historian. I accept that it was his wish to give candid evidence to the Tribunal. However, on many occasions his recall was poor and he was easily distracted by memories of other events.
6. Mr Radmanovic said he has until recently been under the care of Dr Luong, psychiatrist, seeing him fortnightly or monthly since late 2005 or early 2006. He said his diagnosis is depression. Mrs Radmanovic maintained that treatment is continuing. Mr Radmanovic takes Aropax under Dr Luong’s care.
7. Mr Radmanovic said he first received psychiatric treatment in 1998 when he was admitted to Liverpool Hospital as a psychiatric patient. He said this followed an episode when he gave away $7,000 to homeless people. Mrs Radmanovic said that following this admission Mr Radmanovic was prescribed Zoloft until 2003 when he was prescribed Zeprexa, an anti-psychotic, after being diagnosed as schizophrenic. Mrs Radmanovic described Mr Radmanovic’s behaviour during this period as being that of a “crazy person”, particularly in the three months from August 2005 – the period during which he committed 2 counts of armed robbery for which he was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 24 months prison, suspended. Following this period, Mr Radmanovic commenced to see Dr Luong who, after some trial and error, eventually prescribed Aropax. Mrs Radmanovic described him as being much improved on this medication.
8. Mr Radmanovic said that the conviction in 1999 for robbery in company was the result of his anger over a malfunctioning poker machine. He had thrown rocks into a bar and coerced a security guard to give him money.
9. Mr Radmanovic said that the conviction for common assault arose out of an argument he had with his mother about medication. There had been an apprehended violence order in place at the time.
10. Mr Radmanovic said the conviction in 2006 was for two counts of armed robbery of hotels. He described one of the counts as following an argument with an employer because he had been underpaid and then losing all of his money gambling. He said he used a replica weapon.
11. At the hearing Mr Radmanovic gave evidence that he is now facing a further charge of assault, again concerning his mother. Mrs Radmanovic said that
    Mr Radmanovic had asked her for her car keys and she had refused because
    Mr Radmanovic’s licence had been suspended. She said she put the keys in her bra to keep them away from him and Mr Radmanovic grabbed at her to get them and slapped her. Mr Radmanovic said he intends to plead not guilty when the matter is heard in September this year.
12. Mr Radmanovic initially said he has not worked for three years and receives disability support pension from Centrelink. Later in his evidence he said he had eight months work in air-conditioning installation last year. He said he left the job because the employer said he was intending to “refinance the company”.
13. Mr Radmanovic said he plans to do a trade course to be a rigger/dogman in the construction industry. The course begins in September this year. He is hopeful he will get work with those qualifications.
14. Mr Radmanovic provided two documents in support of his application. One was a letter from Father Djuro Djurdjevic attesting to his attendance at Church and saying that he is a “religious young person”. This does not quite address
    Mr Radmanovic’s character. The other document was a short letter from Dr Singh, GP, saying that Mr Radmanovic suffers from schizophrenia, had some problems with the law, is “better now because of treatment” and is “not dangerous to society”. This is scant detail of what appears to be a long history of psychiatric illness and varied diagnoses and treatment. Mr Radmanovic explained that Dr Luong refused to provide a report to him.
15. There is a pattern of behaviour evident in Mr Radmanovic’s history of criminal convictions, with one of those convictions being for serious offences. All of his convictions are for offences involving violence. The picture is complicated by the presence of a psychiatric condition about which the Tribunal has scant evidence. Now Mr Radmanovic is facing another charge of assault which he will contest in court in September.
16. In his favour, Mr Radmanovic appears to have made some improvements in that he is preparing to undertake further training with a view to re-entering the building industry and he has been receiving sustained and regular treatment for his psychiatric condition.
17. However, less than two years have passed since Mr Radmanovic’s sentence ended. He is facing another prosecution for another charge of assault in two months. In these circumstances I consider it is premature to judge whether his character is now rehabilitated. It will be open to Mr Radmanovic to apply again for citizenship at a later time.

DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the 18 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Bell,
Senior Member

Signed: .........................[sgd].....................................................

Associate: Lloyd Doherty

Date of Hearing 28 July 2010

Date of Decision 2 August 2010

Solicitor for the Applicant Unrepresented

Solicitor for the Respondent Mr William Sharpe, Clayton Utz