Home Australia A woman-attacking scumbag is allowed to stay in Australia despite his decade-long record of disturbing crimes.

A woman-attacking scumbag is allowed to stay in Australia despite his decade-long record of disturbing crimes.

0 comment
Serial offender Leroy Wilton (pictured) will not be deported from Australia despite admitting the horrific beating his partner received with a baseball bat.
  • Domestic abuser allowed to stay in Australia
  • Admitted to hitting his partner with a baseball bat

A domestic abuser with a string of offenses spanning more than a decade will remain in Australia after a law court rejected an application to deport him.

Leroy Wilton, 35, was targeted for deportation back to New Zealand after admitting to brutally attacking his partner in Orange, New South Wales, in March 2023.

Wilton, who moved to Australia as a child, has since 2009 committed a series of offences, including being charged with driving, assault and domestic violence (DV) offences.

The long list of charges culminated in last year’s attack when he beat his partner with a baseball bat after falsely accusing her of cheating on him.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ruled against deporting Wilton despite his inability to follow court orders, including a promise to work on his mental health.

Serial offender Leroy Wilton (pictured) will not be deported from Australia despite admitting the horrific beating his partner received with a baseball bat.

Police documents referred to by the court revealed that Wilton assaulted his partner, identified as Mrs D, after believing she had cheated on him.

He falsely accused her of infidelity after she didn’t return home one night, which he later explained was because she was working.

He admitted grabbing Ms D by the neck, lifting her into the air and throwing her across the room before standing over her and throwing punches to her face.

Wilton then brutally beat Ms D with a baseball bat he had left under the bed, before she was able to escape to a friend’s house.

He was convicted of several offenses of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, stalking/intimidation and destruction of property.

Wilton already had convictions for other domestic violence charges involving another woman years earlier.

Wilton’s first DV charge was for common assault in 2015 before a charge of destruction/damage to property in 2017.

He would go on to breach a stopped violence order before being charged with several incidents of stalking/intimidating with intent to cause bodily harm and destruction/damage to property charges between April 2020 and January 2021.

The 35-year-old was flagged for deportation after being sentenced to at least a year in prison following the incident in Orange, New South Wales (pictured), but is allowed to remain in Australia.

The 35-year-old was flagged for deportation after being sentenced to at least a year in prison following the incident in Orange, New South Wales (pictured), but is allowed to remain in Australia.

Wilton’s extensive criminal record and his imprisonment of more than 12 months for the 2023 conviction meant he no longer meets the character test to remain in Australia.

“The plaintiff has continued to reoffend and has committed acts of family violence against different partners,” reads the AAT resolution.

“In addition, (Wilton’s) conduct falls within what the Directorate considers serious, such as violent crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women and acts of family violence.”

The AAT also heard evidence that Wilton had been affected by domestic violence, alcoholism and use of drugs such as ice (methamphetamine) as a child.

Wilton also argued that her use of ice intensified in 2012 to “numb” the pain of her dead daughter’s death.

He has stopped using drugs since being in prison and “his intention is to remain sober”, the AAT heard.

Wilton’s mother and two of his former partners also testified that he should stay in Australia to support his children.

Although the court noted that “the Australian community hopes that the Australian government does not revoke the cancellation of (Wilton’s) visa”, he was allowed to remain in Australia.

‘Taking into account all the relevant material before it, the court is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.’

You may also like