Are road users obviously vulnerable members of community?

Paragraph 8 of Direction 90 provided that the following considerations must be taken into account 'where relevant':

(1)    protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2)    whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3)    the best interests of minor children in Australia; and

(4)    expectations of the Australian community.

Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90 provided that, in considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to various matters including the following:

crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;

In its reasons for affirming a decision under s 501CA(4) to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the Tribunal said:

The Tribunal has regard to the fact that the Applicant driving offences are clearly serious crimes against other road users, who in the context of the Applicant's offending conduct are vulnerable members of the community. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's evidence was that he was under the influence of drugs while he committed these offences, which increases the potential for catastrophic harm. The Applicant takes a different view, namely that his offending 'could be serious' but is 'unlikely' to cause injury, or at its highest 'may' cause harm to the community. The Tribunal finds this view unsettling and disturbing.

The Federal Court answered that questions as follows: