An Indian migrant whose permanent visa was cancelled and his citizenship application refused over a conviction for grooming an 11-year-old girl has been deemed an “unacceptable risk” to the Australian community.
30-year-old Galjinder Singh was convicted in December 2014 of willfully committing an indecent act with a child and using a carriage service to groom a child for sexual activity. While he was 25 of at that time, his victim was 11 years old.
Mr Singh started chatting with his victim whom he believed to be a 26-year-old Korean woman, in December 2013, but later found out that she was actually 11. Despite knowing the girl’s age and numerous warnings by his friends, he continued chatting with the girl and exchanged sexualized messaged.
In February 2014, he met the girl near her school and kissed on her lips and touched her legs. He shared the details of his meeting with a friend who warned him that he could go to jail.
“She is too young to understand that what she is doing is wrong,” the friend warned him. However, Mr Singh continued to contact the girl.
The contact between himself and the victim stopped after police carried out a search at Mr Singh’s house and his subsequent arrest on 12 March 2014.
Source: Getty Images
He entered a guilty plea and was convicted on the charge of using a carriage service to groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment which was wholly suspended with a two-year $1,000 good behaviour bond.
On the second charge of committing an indecent act with a child, he was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order of 18 months with 150 hours of community work and conditions requiring him to get treatment for rehabilitation, mental health and further treatment to reduce offending.
"Unacceptable risk"
In October 2015, he applied for Australian citizenship and disclosed his conviction in the application.
The Department of Home Affairs, in October last year, cancelled his permanent visa on character grounds and refused his citizenship application the following month.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, hearing his appeal against the visa cancellation, said Mr Singh had made an attempt to shift the blame onto the victim herself. Affirming the Department of Home Affair’s decision to cancel his visa, the Tribunal also expressed concern about Mr Singh describing his offending as “technical breach of law” and “technically serious”.
“It was anything but technical. It must be of concern that, if this misguided view of his offending continues, there is a real risk of him reoffending, even if that risk is low,” AAT Senior Member R Cameron said.
“Such risk of future harm by [Mr Singh] is unacceptable”.
