The Court held that the Tribunal did not impermissibly conflate the seriousness of criminal conduct (first limb of Primary Consideration 1 under Direction 110) with the assessment of risk to the Australian community from reoffending (second limb), when read as a whole. The Court confirmed that the two limbs of paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 cannot be considered in complete isolation, as the second limb necessarily requires consideration of the nature and scale of the offending that might recur, including objective seriousness factors such as quantity and the applicant's role. References to 'seriousness' in the risk assessment context were properly understood as encompassing these objective matters, not merely the criminal law's treatment of cannabis offences.
The full text is available to signed-in members.