Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 8776
- 27 Comments
Deportation for driving without a license
Australia’s ‘deportation laws’ laws target non-citizens with a 'substantial criminal record'. The ABC has discovered that the strict law has been applied to a father of five including a newborn, for driving without a license.
A Lebanese-born Sydney man with five children has spent most part of last year in detention awaiting deportation for driving without a licence according to an ABC report.
Fouad Arja moved to Sydney in 2010, married an Australian woman, and was given permanent residency last year. His wife Laila Ismail told the ABC that on three occasions, he made a stupid decision and drove without holding an Australian licence. He was caught, convicted and given a 12 month suspended sentence.
This was effectively enough to trigger deportation proceedings against him regardless of his family circumstances. After serving four months of the 12-month suspended sentence, Mr Arja wasn't able to return to his wife and children - instead he was taken into immigration detention, reports the ABC.
His Lawyer, Willem Oostdyck told the ABC that the Government should not be applying the law so broadly and should be dealing with such matters on a case-by-case basis particularly considering the impact on the family.
“The impact on the family is quite severe; the Government is breaching the Conventional Rights of the Child. The convention very clearly states, Article three states, that you know, the child has a right to a parent or parents, a father and a mother. And by you know implementing this very heavy-handed Section 501, the convention is breached and the children are going to be impacted and the father is going to be impacted” said Mr Oostdyck.
Mr Oostdyck says Fouad Arja's family only has one avenue for appeal, and that's to take the case to the High Court.
Comments
-
Wednesday, 28 October 2015How many times was he caught driving without a licence? You don't just get a 12 month suspended sentence for driving ONCE without licence. This guy would be a serial, repeat offender. As a traffic and roads lawyer, I can assure you that this bloke is no victim. I wonder if he thought about how much he loved his family as he got charged over and over again with crimes. Seems like this bloke is serially contemptuous of our laws. It's not just a 'one off'.
Is the picture of him with his son supposed to be some way of evoking some 'sympathy' for him? Or is it supposed to be some kind of a ploy to make him look like he's a loving dad? It's a pretty cheap trick to line up a series of family happy snaps to make this guy look like he's a victim.
What would have happened if, after the third or fourth time of disobeying the same law, he had recklessly driven and killed someone? A young family? This guy shows no remorse and I am not buying into this sob story. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
The "Traffic Lawyer" strikes again.
Why dont you use your real name?
afraid of your stupid comments?
reminds me of this song... " A horse with no name"
here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSAJ0l4OBHM -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Imagine how many times he drove without a license! Probably drove himself to work and back every day. Just because he only got caught 'over three times' doesn't mean he didn't disbey our laws way more than that. We are talking about a guy who wants to become a citizen and shows utter contempt, continuous contempt for Australian law. He was warned and warned. Then he went to prison. A 12 month sentence tells me this guy has serious issues.
As for the mother, perhaps not having any more kids until she has a more stable situation would be a good plan. No more kids. Husband in prison and may be deported. No more kids. Five would already be a handful. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Hi Glen,
you can get 12 months prison for about any offence these days including serial jaywalking.
Maybe you have the "serious" issue here my friend, telling people how many kids to have and being a misogynistic male, typical. -
Thursday, 14 January 2016
If it's as easy as you suggest to get a 12 month prison sentence, I'm surprised that I know absolutely no one who has ever been inside a prison or been handed a suspended prison sentence.
-
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
It's all going to come down to what's in the best interest of the children and the best interest of the Australian public. This guy just doesn't give a shit about his children, his wife or his family. If he did he would be obeying the law, so that he can remain in Australia and get citizenship.
By the sounds of things his wife doesn't think she can do much better than a serial criminal. Dumb. I agree with Glenn P above. She should stop having kids now. Now is not a good time to have a SIXTH child. The youngest looks so young. It makes me wonder if the dad was in prison when he was born. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
I agree, we should deport all their children because their father is a criminal.
good thinking Jo! -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Shame on you for attempting to parent another woman's womb! She can have as many children as she wants! Also, driving without a licence is not an indication that a parent does not care about their children. You've missed the point of this matter completely which is about the DIBP's misuse of the section 501 power.
-
Monday, 20 February 2017
Eugenia, 'driving without a licence is not an indication that a parent does not care about their children' ? Maybe it's an indication that he doesn't care about others' children.
-
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
This and many other similar cases just reflect the fact that PR is not an unalienable right to remain in Australia. The courts interpret the law. Bad laws or regulations need to be overturned in the Parliament.
-
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Eugenia Ofoley with all due respect I think the point Joanna was making is that this mum is clearly relying on welfare to help her raise these 5 kids and that the Australian public get a little bit sick of paying taxes to support someone's choice to have babies whether or not they can support them.
Here's an example of what happens: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306741/Jobless-mother-10-vows-having-babies-despite-cuts-30-000-year-benefits.html
I think the point was that what is in the best interest of Australia comes first before what is in the best interest of one individual mother. Whilst she has a right to have 10 kids if she wants, I think Joanna meant that to have another one right now would be a bad idea in the circumstances.
I agree with Joanna. I also think that having more kids is going to severely impact on the time she can dedicate to the other kids. Her resources are already spread thin with her husband in prison and detention. Perhaps she could focus on getting a job to help pay for and raise an income for the children she decided to have already, instead of expecting the taxpayer to cover the expense of her choices.
We can be thankful that the new tax reforms are pro working mums and against mums who bludge off Centrelink to raise the families that they choose, expecting the other mums who work and make a go of it.... to pay tax to support welfare parents and their interesting procreation habits.
I note with interest that you work in the same legal firm as Willem Oostdyck, so your comments are hardly impartial. You have probably been won over by this mother, and have all turned into bleeding hearts. The wider Australia also has a bleeding heart. Taxpayers have bleeding hearts.
If you have a child, and you are a working mum, then surely you would understand what it is like to pay heavy taxes to support the multiple children other women have, whilst sitting on welfare. It really grates on women who make good choices, live within their means, and who don't sponge off the government.
Shame on you for calling shame on Joanna because she doesn't share the same thinking. She is just as entitled to her opinion than anyone else.
Surely if your firm wanted this client to avoid public scrutiny they would have avoided the media story. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Post your real name.
You are hiding your stupid comments behind an alias. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015I feel that the best interests of the 5 Australian children have been shunted aside to satisfy some hairy chested agenda which allows the Minister to say he is tough on criminals. My concern is that the tax payer is left to support these 5 children and this man's wife. This is a lose lose all round and simply shows that the standard of DIBP decision making is without regard or proper consideration of the consequences. Assuming that this man did not learn his lesson in prison he has had 10 months to reflect upon his choices whilst he has sat at Villawood in Immigration detention. It is about time that the courts were aware that even a suspended sentence of 12 months is enough to lead to automatic cancellation. These articles raise the overall standard of understanding amongst the wider community who in the main have no idea what is being done in their name. this decision is, in my opinion. unreasonable.
· Eugenia Ofoley Akwele-Anang likes this comment. -
Thursday, 14 January 2016
I am fascinated by your submission that the courts should concern themselves with ensuring their sentences are adjusted so as to prevent the possibility of deportation of non Australian criminals.
Would you suggest that non Australians are given a lesser sentence than Australian citizens who commit the same crime? -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015I am editing out some of the swearing and offensive, sexist and plain rude commentary in some people's comments. Could everyone please keep their comments as clean as they can? I am monitoring this story and moderating out vile language and disparaging remarks. People are entitled to their opinion, of course.
· Liana - Allan and Eugenia Ofoley Akwele-Anang likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Sure he'll will continue to drive without a license once back to the community.
Or may be just issue him with an unconditional drivers license as a concession to his situation-Five Australian Children, problem solved. -
Thursday, 29 October 2015The article raises a few questions in my mind: 1) Is it really the case that the "only avenue" to contest the cancellation decision would be to "the High Court"? I believe that the correct position is that review may be obtained at lower levels of the Federal court system, and it does not seem to me that the best course would be to "go to the High Court" in the first instance. Secondly, it does seem to me to be "bizarre and harsh" that visa holders wind up being held in immigration detention for longer periods than the sentence for the underlying criminal offence. And I would venture that while conditions in Australian prisons might not be so great, the living conditions at detention centres (as has been reported in many news stories) are probably "way worse"! In my view, putting people in unsanitary, unsafe detention centres is simply wrong, no matter what. Even if it turns out that someone has rightfully had their visa cancelled due to having committed a very serious criminal offence, they still shouldn't be placed in terrible living conditions pending exercise of their lawful rights to review of the cancellation decision. Lastly: one would think that in this case, the best interests of the children would weigh very very heavily against cancellation of the visa in this case. The problem is that while it is mandatory that the Minister consider the "bests interests", the ultimate outcome of the Minister's deliberations still rests in his discretion provided that he does take this consideration into account. The Minister can still determine that the best interests of the children are outweighed by other considerations in this case. Based on the information provided int he article, it is really really hard to imagine what those ocnsiderations would bne. It would seem to me that the "risk to the Australian community" of allowing a person who has breached traffic laws by driving without a license would be "low", and that the harm if he were to "re-offend" would likewise be low (keeping in mind that the offence is driving without a licence and not some more serious traffic offence like high range PCA that would present a serious risk to the public. One really has to wonder what is going on here - is there more to this story than is reported in the article? And are visa cancellations being made on the basis of truly minor criminal offences?
· graham - cayzer likes this comment. -
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Driving while unlicensed and uninsured is not legislated as a traffic offence....it is legislated as a crime because of the very serious consequences it can have on any victim of such a driver.
His wife points out on her change.org petition that he drove unlicensed because it was the only way he could get to work. If he works five days a week, that's at least ten times a week he's putting other road users at risk. Apparently he's been charged and convicted at least 3 times and the court has clearly tired of his arrogance in ignoring their orders, eventually realising that they have no option but to imprison him.
Everybody who supports his criminality tells us he received a suspended sentence. Had this been true, he would not have been serving time in a Sydney prison.
There is no suggestion that his being deported would separate him from his children as they would be free to travel with him to Lebanon if they chose.
I have no idea how comfortable or otherwise prisons or immigration detention centres are but I am sure that he is being held there only while his appeals are being heard. If he chose to leave detention, he could I imagine be a free man in Lebanon very soon. -
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Jo,
are you insane or just plain ignorant?
how doesn't deportation stop his children from visiting him? are you aware of the current situation in Lebanon?
This man is out of detention anyways because the minister made a mistake and was shamed.
good work on behalf of their lawyers!
Immigration blog
It seems that in order to question the fairness of immigration related laws, regulations and directions, everything needs to go through a High Court Challenge these days... We will all be watching with great interest if this actually happens, no doubt, and perhaps get some clarity as to whether legislation has gone too far (according to many) or perhaps not far enough (according to some). Maybe the status quo remains (for the unaffected). We may also get some commentary about whether the current definition of a 'serious' crime (including driving without a license or making a traffic mistake and ending up with a 'bening' suspended sentence as these impact on permanent and non permanent folk), should be the same for naturalised Australians and their subsequent Australian-born brood, as people out there often propose... In the meantime, an Australian mother (naturalised or otherwise) with 5 Australian children (born here I would imagine) are currently without their spouse/father-stepfather, possibly for a long time to come... We are all living in interesting, dangerous and potentially unreasonable times, particularly when we often act contrary to our human rights obligations such as the ones we have under the CROC (the Convention on the Rights of the Child, NOT the four-legged, salt water type)