A New Zealand-born repeat offender has avoided deportation in what the Administrative Review Tribunal has called “a very finely balanced decision.”
Hoane Joseph Kahu, who has lived in Australia since he was four, has a criminal history dating back to 2003. His offences include stealing, breaching probation, home invasion, and unlawfully operating a motor vehicle.
It was in 2005 that he committed his most serious offence—the rape of a drunk 15-year-old girl in Gladstone, Queensland.
According to court documents, Kahu saw the teen walking by herself, dragged her by her hair, and raped her. In 2006, he was convicted of three counts of rape, all related to the girl, and sentenced to 8.5 years in prison.
While in jail, he was warned that Australian authorities were considering cancelling his visa and deporting him under the “501” provisions—visa cancellations on character grounds, under section 501 of the Australian Migration Act.
When he was released in 2010, he was told he had been given a reprieve but warned that further offending could change that.
Visa Revoked After Multiple Reoffending
As a result, he was told last year that his visa had been cancelled. He unsuccessfully sought to have the department change its decision, then appealed that refusal to the Administrative Review Tribunal.Last week, the Tribunal found in his favour, allowing him to remain in Australia to care for his severely disabled brother and his unwell mother, as well as his partner, who is paralysed as a result of a motorcycle accident.
Tribunal documents show that Kahu began using methamphetamine in 2018, and by the time he lost his rental accommodation in 2020, he was using it every day, and his reoffending began.
As well as convictions for stealing, fraud, drug possession, drug-driving and other offences, there were also incidents of domestic violence involving a former partner.
In his appeal, Kahu claimed he was now in a stable relationship and emphasised that his current partner and family members relied on him for their care.
His application was supported by those people, along with other family members, employers, and community members.
The tribunal acknowledged he had a wide network of family and friends in Australia and had lived there almost his entire life. In contrast, he has only a few members of his family in New Zealand.
It found that deporting Kahu would have a major negative effect on his Australian family, particularly his brother, mother, and partner.
“He would arrive in New Zealand without having existing social or family support. He will likely experience stress and social isolation as he sets about establishing himself in New Zealand,” the judgment said.
“[Kahu] has lived almost his entire life in Australia. He has strong ties to his family, and the interests of his mother and severely disabled brother are best served by revocation [of the visa cancellation].”
