1. On 25 January 2011, DBN applied for a Working with Children Check. The application is a volunteer application. DBN does not intend to work directly with children but required the Check for a student placement to be undertaken as part of her studies for a Diploma in Welfare.
2. DBN has an extensive criminal history. Her criminal history record discloses numerous court appearances dating from 3 February 1988 to 21 October 2010.
3. Relevantly, on 11 October 2007, DBN was found guilty at the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne and convicted of:
   1. one charge of 'Intentionally cause serious injury' pursuant to section 16 of the Crimes Act 1958; and
   2. one charge of 'Make threat to kill' pursuant to section 20 of the Crimes Act 1958.
4. Part 2 of the Working With Children Act 2005 ('the Act") provides for three categories of application and for a different approach to be taken when assessing each application type.
5. These offences are specified at clauses 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(iv) of Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Act 1999_,_ respectively. Accordingly, DBN's application was assessed as a category 2 application under section 13(1)(b) of the Act.
6. Pursuant to section 13(2) of the Act, the Secretary must refuse to give an Assessment Notice on a category 2 application unless satisfied that doing so would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, having regard to the factors outlined in section 13(2)(a) to (j) of the Act. The Secretary refused to give DBN an Assessment Notice and DBN sought a review of that decision.
7. The review hearing commenced before me on 1 August 2012.
8. I heard evidence about the offending the subject of this application. It is serious. It is hard to imagine a more vicious offence. It was a terrifying and prolonged attack against another human being. The victim will no doubt live with the scars of the brutal attack forever.
9. It became apparent however during the course of the hearing that DBN has undergone something of a transformation and is a very different woman now to the woman she was when she committed these offences.
10. The key question to be determined was whether, despite the transformation in light of the extensive criminal history and the serious nature of the relevant offences, I could be satisfied that DBN was a person who did not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
11. This was complicated further by the fact that there had been other times in DBN's life when she had periods of equally impressive transformation followed by a reversion to her old ways.
12. In this context, the Secretary, in submissions, placed great emphasis on the fact that DBN had not called expert psychological evidence about the risk posed by her. It was submitted that in these circumstances I could not safely conclude that DBN did not pose an unjustifiable risk to children.
13. At this stage DBN who is self-represented, indicated that she wished to call further evidence in support of her application. The proceeding was accordingly adjourned to enable her to consult with, and call evidence from, a clinical psychologist.
14. Mr David Jones subsequently consulted with DBN and produced a report dated 14 September 2012.
15. Following a number of delays, the matter finally resumed before me on 6 February 2013 at which time I heard evidence from Mr Jones in support of his report together with the final submissions of the parties.
16. I reserved my decision and indicated to the parties that I would provide a written determination, which I now produce.
17. Standing in the shoes of the Secretary, I must refuse to give DBN an Assessment Notice unless satisfied that to do so would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, taking into account the factors listed in s 13(2)(a) to (j) of the Act. Under clause 102 of Schedule 1 to the VCAT Act, I must also consider whether, in all the circumstances, it is in the public interest to give DBN an Assessment Notice.
18. I should add at this juncture that it is arguable that in satisfying myself as to whether giving an assessment notice would or would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children that I should also take into account section 13(3) of the Act. This amendment to the Act, took effect from 31 December 2012. The amendment invokes a "reasonable person" test requiring consideration by the decision-maker of whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with an applicant for a Working with Children Check (that was not directly supervised), together with a further test of whether the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would pose an unjustifiable risk to children.
19. I was not addressed on this amendment or its applicability to this proceeding, which was almost finalised before the amendments came into effect. The legislative amendment would not have altered the final outcome such that I did not recall the parties to address me on this issue and I do not propose to address it further in these reasons.
20. I turn then to an examination of section 13(2) of the Act as it applies to DBN.

13(2)(a) the nature and gravity of the offence and its relevance to child-related work

1. A Police Information Liaison Office (PILO) report obtained by the WWC Check Unit provided the following information regarding the relevant offences:

On Monday the 16/04/2007 at approximately 5 pm the victim in this matter was presented at hospital, with major facial injuries and stab wounds about her appendages. The victim's sister and her fiancé had taken the victim to the hospital after finding the victim at an address suffering from the injuries. Police were consequently notified and attended at the hospital. The following information was then obtained from the victim. On Friday the 13/04/2007 the victim has driven her vehicle to an address where she met up with a male person the co offender. The victim is a drug user and uses amphetamine, cannabis and heroin on occasions. The co offender is known to her from her association with drugs. While at the address the victim has used an unknown drug and has fallen asleep. She has then woken up and was confronted by the co offender and the second offender, DBN. DBN lives a few doors down from the co offender in the same street. The co offender and DBN have accused the victim of stealing a quantity of drugs and money from the co offender. The victim denied this. The victim was then punched and kicked about the body by DBN. After being assaulted the victim was placed in the rear of her car and driven to a nearby quarry. The co offender drove the car and DBN remained in the back of the car with the victim. Throughout the duration of the journey the victim was assaulted by DBN. The victim was driven to a secluded part of the quarry near a river: At this location the victim has been stabbed in the legs and arms by DBN using a 'boning knife'. The victim was removed from the car and was kicked in the head, face, legs and arms by DBN. DBN was wearing steel capped boots during the assault. The offenders told the victim that they were going to kill her and place her in the car and push it over a cliff into the river. During the assault the victim's vehicle became bogged and the offenders were unable push it over the cliff. The offenders were then picked up by a male person known to the victim who drove both offenders and the victim back to DBN's house. While at this address and between Friday the 13/04/2007 and Sunday the 15/04/2007 the victim was held captive and continuously bashed about the head, face and body and stabbed once again in the leg by DBN. The victim stated that DBN used steel capped boots to kick her in the head and body. During the ordeal DBN told the victim that if she reported the incident to the police she would kill her and her family. The victim had her possessions stolen. On Sunday the 15/04/2007 a friend of DBN's that lives down the road went to visit DBN. While at the address she discovered the victim sitting on the couch in the lounge room with her head covered by a bed sheet. DBN's friend asked DBN who was under the sheet. DBN replied that "it was the dirty thing that stole from my mate", DBN then grabbed the victim and told her to shut up or she would hurt her some more. DBN then went to the toilet. While DBN was in the toilet the friend looked under the sheet and found the battered victim. The friend describes seeing the stab-wounds on the victim's legs and her face was swollen. After getting the victim a drink of water the friend left the address. Later in the evening the friend returned to DBN's house and again found the victim sitting on the couch. On this occasion the victim's face was even more swollen and bruised and she was unable to open her eyes. The friend insisted to DBN that she wanted to get the victim out of the house. DBN initially resisted but the friend managed to get the victim out of the house and took her back to her address where she harboured the victim until approximately 4.30 pm on Monday the 16/04/2007. The victim managed to call her sister who attended the address and discovered her.

1. Overstatement of the gravity of the offences is not possible and DBN, who gave evidence before me, acknowledged this fact. She is clearly ashamed of herself.
2. It is extremely difficult to understand how such violent offences can occur and DBN struggled herself to understand how it could have happened.
3. In a letter to the Working with Children Unit dated 2 May 2011, DBN wrote:

"Unfortunately I do not remember all of the details concerning these offences, but sadly there were only certain things I could remember of that time and they were, waking up to find the person badly hurt in my home and vague memories of trying to bandage the person's injuries".

1. In a conversation with an officer from the Working with Children Unit conducted on 20 May 2011, DBN said:

"I know that I actually stabbed her in the legs and I remember bandaging every one of those as we went, sort of like I've got this drug taking effect and then I'm sort of coming out of it for a little while and then doing my caring type of thing".

1. I found the report and evidence given by Mr Jones to be helpful and insightful. The findings of his clinical interview and assessment included:

"Bipolar disorder: This condition was reported to have been psychiatrically diagnosed when DBN was an inmate at Tarrengower Prison. The condition description provided by DBN strongly suggests that it is most closely consistent with the clinical criteria for Bipolar 1, being recurrent episodes of mania, and major depression, with strong possibility of psychotic episodes. The condition severity would have been exacerbated by occasions of use of illicit substances".

"Multiple substance dependence: DBN recounted a usage history of over thirty years of polysubstance consumption, generally amphetamine/stimulants and heroin, with lesser use of cannabis and alcohol".

"Sleep disorder, not specifically diagnosed: DBN provided symptom accounts that were consistent with the presence of a sleep disorder, that brought about sleep deficits, associated with "restless legs". She described the trajectory of this condition as having been in place for many years, and that it had become chronic and the deficits had developed into quite disabling effects upon her".

"Adverse Psychosocial history; DBN recounted a complex personal psychosocial history that included several family deaths with some occurring during her childhood and adolescence; several incidents during the same period where she experienced victimisation as a result of crime or related violence; gynaecological illness at age fifteen that rendered her infertile and that caused her significant emotional distress; imprisonment of a brother when she was 22 years of age; and several personal relationships that entailed domestic violence and enhanced use of illicit substances. DBN indicated that her maladjustment to these occurrences and situations had contributed to the further development and maintenance of the polysubstance dependence as well as exacerbation of the bipolar condition."

"The most recent offences for which DBN was convicted and served a term of imprisonment appear to have been associated with the presence of active polysubstance dependence and resultant significant use levels; untreated bipolar disorder with possible psychotic features; and untreated sleep disorder with probable resultant sleep deficit"

1. I accepted the evidence of Mr Jones whose evidence in this respect was largely unchallenged. I am satisfied that the serious offending was triggered by the factors identified by Mr Jones.
2. This finding does not in any way mitigate the offending or make the challenges faced by DBN in succeeding in her application any less challenging. Rather, it provides a basis for me to contextualise the offending to ascertain the triggers in which such offending occurred and consider the likelihood of its recurrence.
3. Although the victim was not a child, the relevance of the offending to child-related work is apparent. It rests in the fear that uncontrolled, senseless attacks have no logical basis such that the perpetrator does not necessarily carefully and rationally select their victim. Any person, including a child, could find themselves at any time in the path of the offender's fury.

(b) the period of time since DBN committed the offence

1. The offence was committed between 13 April 2007 and 15 April 2007 and the matter went before the Court on 11 October 2007.

1. It is now over 5 years since the commission of these offences. This is a reasonably significant timeframe, during which there has been no further offending.
2. The passage of time is an important consideration in assisting the tribunal to determine whether there is a likelihood of re-offending. In determining the extent to which I can place confidence on the passage of time as an indicator of rehabilitation, it is necessary to look to all of the surrounding circumstances.
3. DBN was only released from prison on 4 June 2010 and finished her period of parole for the relevant offences in March 2012. It could be argued that there is a strong motivation not to re-offend whilst on parole.
4. A complex array of factors led to DBN's offending. It is arguable that a lengthy period of time is needed to determine whether or not DBN will remain motivated, mentally well and continue to abstain from her past detrimental lifestyle choices including polysubstance abuse.

(c) whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for the offence or a charge for the offence is still pending

1. For each of the offences the subject of this determination, convictions were recorded, reflecting the serious nature of the offending.

1. Intentionally cause serious injury - DBN was sentenced to 3 year's imprisonment.
2. Make threat to kill - DBN was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment of which 6 months was to be served concurrently.
3. The sentences imposed, once again reflect the serious nature of the offending.
4. DBN was sentenced on the same day for the offence of false imprisonment (common law) which arose from the same circumstances as the relevant offences. DBN received an 18 month sentence, 9 months of which was to be served concurrently. She was also sentenced on 31 October 2007 to 9 month's concurrent imprisonment for a range of offences including breach of Community Based Order, dishonesty offences and drug offences by the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine.
5. These additional offences are not relevant offences for the purpose of classifying the application under the Act but are relevant for the purposes of determining the application as a whole.

(e) the ages of DBN and of any victim at the time DBN committed the offence

1. DBN was aged 39 years at the time she committed the offence. The victim was aged 25 years.

1. DBN was, by this time, a mature adult with a lengthy period of offending behind her.
2. Although the victim was not a child or teenager and, in that regard, the age discrepancy is of less significance than it is in some cases that come before the tribunal, the age disparity remains of some relevance in that it reveals a fully mature woman controlling and abusing a person who was considerably younger.

(f) whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence has been decriminalised since DBN engaged in it

1. The conduct that constituted the offences has not been decriminalised.

(g) DBN's behaviour since she committed the offence

1. DBN's life has turned around since the commission of this offence. She can currently only be described as a model citizen who is making impressive and concerted efforts to improve herself and the lives of others around her.
2. Upon her release from prison DBN moved to the country to get away from past influences and commenced caring for her elderly mother who has cerebral palsy.
3. There has been no further offending. On 21 October 2012 DBN was placed on a 3 year bond with conviction by the Local Court of NSW at Finlay for old offences. She therefore remains under the supervision of a Court. This came about because following her release from prison, DBN travelled to NSW to finalise a range of dishonesty and drug-related offences committed approximately 13 years ago.
4. DBN has been drug-free since 2008. She concedes to having used drugs whilst in prison but states that this ended following the death of her father in 2008.
5. DBN, in her evidence before me, expressed a strong desire to turn her own insights into domestic violence, incarceration, the difficulties encountered upon release from prison and substance abuse to good use.
6. She aims to gain her Welfare and Community Development Diplomas and to continue to campaign for the rights of people who have come into conflict with the justice/prison system.
7. She is involved with organisations dealing with the issues surrounding women pre/post-release from the prison system. She is a volunteer Collective member with Flat Out Inc which supports women who have had contact with the justice/prison system.
8. DBN's evidence about her rehabilitation and post-release conduct is supported by the evidence.
9. Mr Jones, in his report, addressed the progress made by DBN in resolving the various factors which he had identified in his report as contributing to her offending.

"DBN reported that while she was [in] Prison, she commenced a medication regime that she has since continued. She reported that she is a patient of [a] general practitioner...[identification provided] She provided a medication summary indicative of her treatment regime. She reported that she is symptom-free and that the condition is recognised by her GP as appropriately managed".

"She described the complex processes of deciding to relinquish use while [in prison] and stated that she had been able to do so after her release. She stated that she had received, and responded positively to, extensive psychological and behavioural counselling, and while [in prison] had commenced a methadone program that she has now ceased. She stated that she currently does not use amphetamine/ stimulants and heroin substances, and accordingly, if this was able to be corroborated through biochemical screening, she would be regarded as in remission from the multiple substance dependence disorder".

"She described the medication and self-regulation regime that she has employed since her time [in prison] and indicated that the symptoms appear to have ameliorated".

"DBN recounted the processes that commenced during her time [in prison] and that have continued since, that have contributed to her experiencing much more favourable current adjustment to the historical occurrences and situations.

DBN provided a detailed account of her activities and personal status since the completion of her time [in prison]. In summary, she has a stable relationship with a male who lives in Melbourne and with whom she spends many weekends; she provides the principal carer role for her mother who was reported to have cerebral palsy; she has ceased use of amphetamine/stimulants and heroin; her mental health status appears to be adverse symptom free and adequately managed; she reported that she had completed her post-release parole requirements quite satisfactorily; and she has completed one year of the Diploma of Community Welfare ... and has the intention to complete the qualification, contingent of course, upon the success of her appeal to VCAT in this matter."

1. DBN was supervised whilst on parole - at first intensively, reducing over time.
2. I received a brief (undated) report from DBN's Corrections Officer, confirming that DBN successfully completed her parole order which ran from 4 June 2010 to 4 March 2012.
3. The Working with Children Unit also spoke with the Corrections Officer on the phone on 31 May 2011 who said:

"She is probably the most motivated person I've seen on an order. I'm not sure how much you know about orders, but when they are released on a parole order they're required for the first 3 months to attend twice per week, and then they go out to fortnightly and as long as they are compliant they go further out.

So she is currently reporting monthly and her drug and alcohol component has been completed. She completed a Building Blocks of Life program, which looked at things like finances, self-esteem, assertiveness, healthy relationships, that sort of thing. That was voluntary, she wasn't mandated, I did suggest she might find some of the content useful, but she decided to do that herself.

She has also engaged with a psychologist and that was a suggestion because she has Bi Polar. She takes her prescribed medication but because of some of the issues from her past, we suggested that she might want to attend some psychological counselling to help her deal with some of the issues from her past and to help her with her future goals and things like that.

... she was seeing her regularly at the start and she has one of those mental health plans where they get x amount of appointments under the medicare scheme. At the moment it is on an as needs basis because she is travelling so well..."

1. I received a report from Ms FX (who is an accredited Mental Health Social Worker). Ms FX describes the sessions as involving:

"important personal work that explored relationships with family members, her experience of past abuse, anger, misuse of alcohol and drugs, and her own participation in violent behaviour and involvement in crime".

1. Ms FX is supportive of DBN's application and describes her as a person who has:

"worked hard to advance herself taking care to maintain distance from her previous life. DBN has always presented in an open and honest manner in my contact with her. She does not avoid tackling the hard stuff in her life. Her honesty has been a strength that has assisted, and will continue to assist her, to maintain the change that has resulted in DBN developing a very different life than her previous life"

1. The Working with Children Unit also contacted DBN's case manager on 31 May 2011 who said:

"..she has made a huge effort to turn her life around and I think she's doing a great job and as far as a client goes, she has been perfect, doing all the things that I hoped my clients would do, and that doesn't happen that often so I consider her a success at any rate".

1. DBN's efforts to rehabilitate herself have been nothing short of extraordinary. Nothing in these reasons or determination should in any way be seen to diminish the progress she has made. The repeated acclaim of professionals in an industry which often reports disappointment or limited success is a testament to the progress DBN has made.

(h) the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by DBN

1. The risk of future threat to a child is the key consideration in any determination under the Act.
2. It is for DBN to establish that she does not pose such a risk, rather than for the Secretary to ascertain that she does.
3. A turn-around of the magnitude described under paragraph (g) would usually speak volumes in favour of reaching the conclusion that rehabilitation has occurred and that DBN does not pose a future threat to a child.
4. The Secretary commends DBN on her efforts towards rehabilitation; concedes that her history of offending does not appear to involve children and that the majority of DBN's offending has not been of a violent nature. However, the Secretary submits that in light of the inexplicable and shocking nature of the offending, which occurred when DBN was under the influence of drugs, that insufficient time has elapsed since her release from prison to reassure the community that she will not reoffend and/or engage in substance abuse.
5. The Secretary raised the concern that if DBN fails to abstain from using drugs, she would pose a future threat to children given the unpredictable and 'out of character' nature of her past offending behaviour.
6. The Secretary pointed to the criminal history of DBN to emphasise other lengthy periods of time during which DBN has led a seemingly blameless existence only to return to offending.
7. The Secretary drew my attention to the 7 year gap between the commission of drug offences in 1989 and the next spate of offences in 1996. Although DBN gave evidence that she continued to use drugs during some of this period, she gave evidence that she did abstain whilst assisting her brother to get through his personal difficulties. Accordingly, she did not find herself before the Courts.
8. From 1996, the offending history escalated again with repeated appearances before the Courts for drug, dishonesty and other related matters until 1999 when DBN was incarcerated. Although, following her release from prison she remained drug-free for one month, upon the release from custody of her then boyfriend, she continued using drugs again. DBN gave evidence that she was not ready at that time to take the opportunities afforded to her through the corrections system.
9. DBN accordingly found herself before the Courts for ever-increasingly serious drug-related matters until 2001. Once again, however the offending subsided for a period of time. DBN explained in her evidence before me that during this time she was on methadone, had family support, was working and was feeling like she was in a good space.
10. There is no further offending until 2006 when DBN was charged with a range of dishonesty offences. She then committed the serious crimes the subject of discussion in these proceedings.
11. The Working with Children Unit also spoke with Ms McDonald on the phone on 8 June 2011, who was DBN's drug and alcohol counsellor. When asked by the Unit whether DBN was suitable to work with children, Ms McDonald said:

"Yes I do. Just her way, her personality, she's very open to people and she has the will to want to help people. DBN has always been very open and honest with me and very transparent and the changes that I've seen in her during that time have been amazing".

1. The Secretary contends that given DBN's history, it is premature to simply accept that DBN "wasn't ready then" but is ready now. The Secretary points out that DBN appears to be "in a good place" now, but that the possibility of her falling back into substance abuse and a consequent criminal lifestyle cannot be confidently predicted.
2. The Secretary spent some time exploring these issues with Mr Jones. In his report Mr Jones concludes:

"It appears to be the case that post-release and through to the current time, the conditions are stabilised with inactive or diminished symptoms due to voluntary self-regulation by DBN, and the adoption of adequate medication regimes maintained through good liaison with general medical practitioners. There is good prospect of continuance of the stabilisation of the mental health of DBN due to her discernable commitment to the self-care regime and observed positive attachment to her improved subjective quality of life.

Similarly DBN indicated significant relative improvement of her personal adjustment to her psychosocial history, relative to what appears to have been the case prior to her time [in prison]. The improved adjustment has a high probability of contributing to her ongoing mental health maintenance and symptom stabilisation.

In the light of the above clinical conclusions, I am of the view that there is very limited probability of recurrence of the previous crimnogenic behaviour. Further, given the above reported aspects of the psychosexual history of DBN, I am also of the view that there is extremely limited probability that the recurrence of crimnogenic behaviour would be likely to be target transferred to children or adolescents. These estimations of probability have been further strengthened by consideration of the activities and personal status of DBN since the completion of her time [in prison].

Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that in the light of the psychological evidence available to me for the construction of this report, that DBN does not pose a risk to children, either sexually or otherwise physically, and that she does not pose an unjustified risk to the safety of children as indicated in the rationale for the decision by the Department of Justice, that is the subject of the current appeal".

1. Under cross-examination Mr Jones did not alter his opinion and maintained that there had been significant change in DBN brought about by the therapeutic interventions.
2. Mr Jones conceded, however, that having only spent 90 minutes with DBN, that additional time would have been useful for his clinical assessment given her complex history. He had not for example had sufficient time to explore with DBN the reasons behind her previous gaps in offending and or drug taking. Mr Jones was therefore unable to directly compare the circumstances in DBN's life during her previous periods of non-offending to the current situation. He could only surmise that she had not had the same level of support (professional or otherwise).
3. Mr Jones stated that the future for DBN depends to what degree she has achieved redirectional change and how profound that change is. He considered her prison experience to have been profound but could not draw any comparisons to her earlier experiences and agreed with the proposition that there must have been profound changes in place during those previous periods of social conduct.
4. Mr Jones conceded that he had not taken specific information from DBN about her use of the drug "ICE" and that the drug is known to have a deleterious effect on the brain. He conceded that neuropsychological testing would have been beneficial and would have enriched the clinical material considerably.

1. It has been repeatedly emphasised in decisions of this tribunal that an Applicant does not have to show no risk. That would be an almost impossible feat. A careful, logical, balanced weighing of the future threat to children posed by DBN is what is required.
2. DBN is older now. She demonstrates genuine remorse for her offending and displays insight into her offending and substance abuse. She has re-engaged in the community through family friends and her studies.
3. Clearly there is no discernible threat to children (or anyone else) whilst DBN remains drug-free, and mentally well.
4. DBN's likelihood of remaining drug-free is bolstered by a number of factors.
5. I accept that she has made new friends and has re-established links with her family. However, these types of changes have occurred previously and were not, for various reasons, able to be sustained.
6. There is no evidence that DBN currently has any problems with substance abuse. However, there is evidence of long term addiction and abuse. DBN's abstinence from substance abuse (in an environment outside of prison and the post-release support system) is of relatively short compass.
7. DBN is currently medicated for bi-polar disorder. This is a positive factor in DBN's favour. DBN has a positive attitude to it as disclosed in her discussions with the Working with Children Unit:

"I feel like I rattle, but I'd never go off them because I feel so stable and so much better".

1. However it is unclear whether, if DBN were to revert to drug use, especially involving some of the hard core drugs such as ICE which lead to her previous offending, whether her attitude to her medication would remain the same. Whilst it was not canvassed before me whether the medication coupled with the use of illicit drugs would be deleterious, one would assume so.
2. I note that the professionals who have supported DBN during this time describe an extraordinary and committed turn-around by her. They are professionals who see people released from prison and who have a realistic perspective on the frequency of "success stories". However in light of DBN's complex history I am not satisfied that the risk of DBN not relapsing into significant and serious drug use has been established.

(i) any information given by DBN in, or in relation to, the application

1. DBN is 45 years of age.
2. DBN gave evidence of a troubled upbringing in which her father was violent.
3. She described herself during her youth as being shy and without any self-esteem. She was the victim of domestic violence from the age of 17-20 when she left that partner but then became involved with another man who was a drug user. She thereafter became involved in drug use from the age of 21.
4. She described her various attempts at becoming drug-free but conceded that she lacked the commitment on each of those occasions.
5. She stated that whilst she was in custody, her father died (April 2008) and that this was a triggering event for her to determine that she had to change her life around.
6. She has accordingly re-engaged with her mother and brother who had until then disengaged from her.
7. I received a brief but supportive reference from DBN's brother dated 14 August 2012. I did not hear evidence from him. In his reference he said:

"From 1994 to 1996...DBN came to live with me and my 2 boys (...9 and 7, her nephews). I was grateful for her help as I was still suffering the effects of PTS (Post traumatic Stress syndrome) in losing their mother in a car accident just a few years earlier.

At my home DBN took care of all household chores, shopping as well as organising the boys with relation to school, homework and chores. I wish to inform you that I have never seen my sister say an angry word to my boys; she was always loving patient and caring towards them".

1. I received in addition several very supportive letters from fellow students of DBN who spoke positively about DBN's project work and personal attributes. I also received a reference from a member of the teaching staff confirming the enrolment and the positive approach taken by DBN to her studies. I accept that DBN was doing well in her studies.
2. The references were all verified by calls made by the Working with Children Unit to the referees in May 2011.
3. The Secretary pointed out that in relation to reference material filed on behalf of DBN all have only known DBN for a limited period of approximately 18 months. Although this is not surprising in circumstances where DBN has had to establish a new friendship base, it is a relevant consideration, given DBN's history of relapsing into previous conduct.

(j) Any other matter which the Secretary considers relevant to the application

1. DBN has a less than impressive criminal history spanning some 20 years.
2. The Secretary emphasized DBN's criminal history record which shows that she has been found guilty of numerous other offences which are non-relevant offences for the purposes of the Act but are relevant matters for VCAT's consideration under section 13(2)(j) of the Act.

1. I do not consider that a sufficient period has elapsed to consider that the risk posed by DBN to children is an acceptable one. It is too early to have the requisite confidence that DBN will not revert to drug use.
2. I am influenced in my decision by the violent nature of the relevant offences against a vulnerable victim and the drug-fuelled nature of the attack, during which DBN displayed a complete disregard for her victim's physical and mental well-being. I also take into account the long criminal history coupled with the short period of time since DBN's release from prison, providing insufficient time to be satisfied that DBN's risk of reoffending has diminished.
3. I cannot yet be satisfied that DBN does not pose an unacceptable risk to children.
4. DBN has previously been able to maintain significant drug-free and offending-free periods of time. During those years her conduct was equally laudable and revealed a social conscience and desire to help others in the community. She assisted in a volunteer capacity with the Prison Information and Helpline through VACRO - the Victorian Association of the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (which she continues to do); she worked as a housing and support worker with various organisations where she addressed the housing needs of clients including supporting women pre-and post- release from prison.
5. DBN still potentially has much to offer the community. DBN is justly proud of herself and her achievements but my primary concern must be the protection of children.

1. Clause 102(b) of the VCAT Act requires me to give consideration to whether, in all the circumstances, it is in the public interest to issue DBN with an Assessment Notice.
2. In LKQ v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2011] VSC 227 at [91], Kyrou J. stated:

"Where the VCAT determines that a category 2 applicant does not satisfy s13(2) of the Act, it is difficult to envisage how the VCAT could find, pursuant to cl. 102 of schedule 1 to the VCAT Act, that it is in the public interest to give an assessment notice. His Honour also considered at [90] a number of factors which may be relevant when considering public interest including evidence that DBN was suffering from a serious mental illness or had problems with drugs or alcohol, evidence that DBN had skills that could benefit children or evidence that DBN was a positive role model for children."

1. In this case the public interest considerations similarly do not now sway the balance in DBN's favour.
2. The Secretary submitted that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that DBN has any specific skills that could benefit children or that DBN could be viewed as a positive role model for children.
3. DBN does not anticipate working with children.
4. DBN requires a Working with Children Check in order to complete her Diploma in Community Welfare Studies. Her studies require her to complete a field placement. The field placement requires a Working With Children Check. Accordingly her studies have been deferred.
5. DBN aspires to work with women before and after release from custody. Some of those women will have children and issues related to their children and parenting.
6. I consider that she could potentially contribute much to society drawing on her previous experiences. Her passion to assist people released from prison to make the transition back into the community is evident.
7. The Secretary submitted that it was the policy of the educational institution which was driving the application, rather than DBN's desire to obtain a Working with Children Check. I accept that DBN is bound by the policy of the educational institution. This tribunal is not the appropriate forum within which to challenge that policy, however I make the broad comment that it is unfortunate that my decision will have the effect of potentially preventing DBN from concluding her studies.