DTV v Children's Guardian

Does the applicant pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children?

1. To engage in child-related work in NSW, a person must hold a working with children check clearance. The Children's Guardian can grant a clearance unless the applicant is, by virtue of his or her criminal history, a disqualified person. The Children's Guardian also has the power to conduct a risk assessment of an applicant. Where the applicant is neither a disqualified person nor the subject to a risk assessment, the Children's Guardian must issue him or her with a working with children check clearance. An applicant who is subject to a risk assessment must also be granted a clearance unless the Children's Guardian is satisfied that he or she poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. (s5B and s18 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012)
2. The Tribunal must consider allegations made against an applicant in the following way: 1. The Tribunal may be satisfied that the allegation against an applicant is established. 2. Alternatively, the Tribunal may be satisfied that the relevant incident did not occur, i.e. that the allegation is groundless. 3. In a context where the welfare of the child is paramount and the question being posed concerns the risk of harm to children, the Tribunal may not be satisfied that an allegation has been made out, but may nevertheless have a lingering doubt or suspicion about it. In this case, the Tribunal should consider whether the circumstances surrounding a particular incident, or course of conduct, means that the existence of a risk has not been disproven. (M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; Children's Guardian v CKF [2017] NSWSC 893 at [55]; BKE v Office of Children's Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 at [33]; Children's Guardian v CXZ [2019] NSWSC 1083; [1988] HCA 68; DAR v Children's Guardian [2018] NSWSC 942; Office of the Children's Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWCA 1406)
3. According to Walton J in Children's Guardian v CXZ [2019] NSWSC 1083, the Tribunal is required to assess all allegations raised by the Children's Guardian. Citing with approval the consideration of risk as discussed by Harrison J in Office of the Children's Guardian [2018] NSWSC 942, Walton J found that the test as to risk only emerged, in the case of an allegation of wrongdoing, if an allegation is found not to be proven and could not be dismissed as groundless.
4. In this matter, we have also been guided by Children's Guardian v BLF [2016] NSWSC 1206 where Fagan J commented at [29] -[31]: In considering the requirements of natural justice it was relevant for the Tribunal to consider that because the allegations were so serious it ought not rely upon the assertions for the truth of their contents without either seeing or hearing the victim and other witnesses cross-examined (which was not going to be possible because the Children's Guardian did not intend to call them) or at least reviewing transcript of cross-examination conducted on some other occasion (of which there was none). If the Tribunal were to limit itself to determining no more than whether there was a real risk that the offences had occurred, as opposed to making a finding whether in fact they did occur the four statements, treated as evidence only of the fact that the allegations were made, would be of some relevance. Received on that basis the statements could be looked at for internal consistency, consistency between the respective makers of the statements, inherent probability or otherwise, agreement with objectively proved surrounding facts and so on. Examination of the evidence of allegations on that basis would be a foundation for the Tribunal to decide whether there was a risk that the allegations were true. It would be a weak basis for an affirmative conclusion without explanation of the victim's refusal to testify in 1999 and of the Children's Guardian's failure to call her in 2015 or 2016. It would add nothing to the plaintiff's case if the allegations were treated as evidence of their truth accompanied by appropriate discounting of weight for the absence of any opportunity to test. Discounting for the absence of opportunity to test such allegations, where no explanation for failure to call the witnesses was advanced, would reduce them to negligible weight.
5. In determining whether DTV poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, we have considered those matters raised by the Children's Guardian in refusing him a working with children check clearance, namely the totality of his criminal record in addition to apprehended violence orders issued against him and allegations of assault made against him. We have also considered expert evidence by the psychologist, Dr Luke Heeps, in addition to references and oral and written evidence provided by the applicant.
6. We have then considered these matters in the context of those topics we are obliged to take into consideration, as set out in s30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act.

The totality of the applicant's criminal record

1. It is not disputed that the applicant has a criminal record both as a juvenile and as an adult and that his last conviction was in 2013 when he was charged with common assault for hitting the victim - an adult male - with a banana. The charge was found proved but dismissed pursuant to s10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that no children witnessed the incident which we accept was not premeditated. Whilst we accept that the assault took place, given the relatively minor nature of the incident and the fact that it took place over six years ago, we are not satisfied that it - or the circumstances surrounding it - demonstrate that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciate risk to the safety of children.
2. On the evidence before us and in addition to the common assault in 2013, we accept that the applicant committed the following offences (for which he was convicted): 1. between 1992 and 1995, when he was a juvenile, steal motor vehicle, steal from a person, driving unlicensed and drive in a manner dangerous. 2. between 1997 and 2013, as an adult, possession of a prohibited drug, destroy property, drive while licence suspended, resist police officer in execution of duty, common assault and offensive language.
3. He did not receive a sentence of imprisonment for any of these offences and on the evidence before us, none of the offences involved children. On the information before us, we are not satisfied that the applicant's convictions demonstrate that he is a current risk to the safety of children.

Alleged assaults by the applicant

1. In 2016, two allegations of assault were made against the applicant. On each occasion, the charges, which are considered below, were dismissed.

6 March 2016

1. According to the police facts, the applicant and his partner's mother were having an argument while the applicant was holding his infant son. The applicant raised an arm to his partner's mother who then threw Coca Cola at him. The applicant allegedly punched his mother-in-law to the back of her head and was subsequently charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. No evidence was offered on the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the charge was dismissed.
2. According to the applicant's statutory declaration, he had been holding his then infant son when his partner's mother made a threatening move towards him. As a reflex, in order to protect his son, the applicant put up an arm, accidentally making contact with his partner's mother. The applicant stated that any injuries sustained to his partner's mother had not been caused by him.
3. On the evidence before us, which includes a sworn declaration by the applicant, we are satisfied that an altercation occurred between the applicant and his partner's mother and that the applicant's arm made contact with her as he tried to protect his son. In the absence of any evidence from the complainant, we cannot be satisfied that the applicant punched his partner's mother deliberately. We accept that the two argued in front of the applicant's young child. Although we do not condone such behaviour in front of a child, on the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that the altercation, which occurred over three years ago, demonstrates that the applicant poses a current risk to the safety of children.

25 December 2016

1. According to the police facts, on 25 December 2016, the applicant went to his ex-wife's house to pick up the couple's children so he could spend time with them on Christmas Day. That night, the applicant, his son, his new partner and their child went with the applicant's ex-wife to a fast food restaurant. An argument began between the applicant and his ex-wife, who kicked the applicant's car, causing a small dent. The ex-wife told police the applicant had grabbed her by the arm and thrown her on the footpath causing her to fall and bruise her wrist. The applicant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm but the charge was later withdrawn and dismissed.
2. In a statutory declaration dated 17 May 2018, the applicant explained the circumstances leading to the charge. According to the applicant, his ex-wife, who is the mother of his two older children, has mental health concerns requiring medication with lithium. On the day of the incident, the applicant had missed her medication for two months and when the applicant came to pick up the couple's children, became aggressive and began to kick the applicant's car door.
3. In a statutory declaration dated 21 August 2018, the applicant's ex-wife wrote: I..suffer from bipolar which lead me to make false allocations [sic] on [DTV] which wasn't true due to the fact I was not taking my medication as instructed by my mental health team which I would like to apologise to [DTV] if I have caused any inconvenience.
4. We accept the statutory declarations by the applicant and his ex-wife and on this basis find the allegations that the applicant assaulted his ex-wife on 25 December 2016 to be groundless. For this reason, we will not consider the allegations in our assessment of the applicant's current risk to the safety of children.

Apprehended Violence Orders

1. A series of apprehended violence orders were issued against the applicant between 2001 and 2017.

23 February 2006

1. After the applicant was charged for an assault that took place on 23 February 2006, a final apprehended violence order was issued against the applicant for the protection of his ex-wife and their two children. The assault charge was later dismissed.
2. The event record prepared by the police states, in part, that: The accused has then walked over to the victim and stood right in front of her, and leant forward towards her. The accused placed his hands into fists and then pushed them underneath the victim's jaw. At the same time, the accused pressed both of this [sic] thumbs into the victim's neck and the victim fell backward onto the bed. The accused maintained his hand position as the victim fell and the victim could not breathe properly. The victim struggled and said to the accused 'get of me, I can't breathe.' The accused released his grip, and the victim sat up on the bed. The accused grabbed the front left of the victim's shirt, and began pulling it…The victim got off the bed and ran into the dressing room opposite the bedroom and rang 000…Police arrived shortly after, however the accused had left the premises. The victim was extremely emotional, crying and visibly shaking when speaking with police…The victim suffered soreness to her neck and jaw as a result of the accused placing his fists under her jaw and pressing his thumbs into her neck.
3. On the basis of the police description of the event, including a description of the complainant's distressed demeanour on police attendance at the house, we are satisfied that an altercation occurred between the applicant and his ex-wife, such that she became fearful.
4. We are satisfied that this incident is relevant to an assessment of the applicant's risk to the safety of children, although its relevance is lessened by the fact that it is now over a decade since it occurred. For the reasons set out below, we are satisfied that the applicant has since modified his behaviour such that he does not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

24 May 2006

1. According to police statements, the police were called to the applicant's residence where they found his (now) ex-wife and baby to be distressed. According to the applicant's ex-wife, the applicant had dragged her into the bedroom and thrown her on the bed, in the presence of the child. An apprehended violence order was issued against the applicant.
2. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that there was an altercation between the applicant and his ex-wife such that she became distressed enough to seek police assistance.
3. We are satisfied that this incident is relevant to an assessment of the applicant's risk to the safety of children, although its relevance is lessened by the fact that it is now over a decade since it occurred. For the reasons set out below, we are satisfied that the applicant has since modified his behaviour such that he does not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

13 September 2006

1. On 20 September 2006, a police event record was created for an incident alleged to have occurred on 13 September 2006, which was said to involve the applicant grabbing his ex-wife by the arm, leaving a scratch on her. On the evidence before us, it would appear that the police did not attend the ex-wife's residence on the night of the alleged assault
2. The applicant was subsequently charged with common assault and contravening an existing apprehended domestic violence order issued against him. He was not convicted on either count.
3. On the basis that we have no evidence from the applicant's ex-wife to substantiate the allegation, no evidence of her alleged injury, no evidence that the police were called to attend to ex-wife's residence on 13 September 2006, no admissions by the applicant and no conviction for the alleged assault, we cannot make a positive finding that the conduct alleged actually occurred. Given the paucity of evidence before us, we find the allegation to be groundless. For this reason, we have not taken it into consideration in an assessment of the applicant's current risk to the safety of children.

3 January 2007

1. On 3 January 2007, the applicant was charged with contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. The charge was dismissed and costs ordered against the informant.
2. Given that the charge was dismissed, with costs awarded in favour of the applicant, we cannot be made a positive finding in relation to the allegation.
3. On the basis of the court result, the fact that costs were awarded in favour of the applicant and no evidence was put forward by the complainant (the applicant's ex-wife), we find the complaint to be groundless. For this reason, we have not taken it into consideration in an assessment of the applicant's current risk to the safety of children.

18 January 2010

1. A provisional apprehended violence order was issued against the applicant on 18 January 2010 on the basis that his ex-wife was in fear of being assaulted. A final order was issued against the applicant on 25 June 2010 and remained in force for a period of 12 months.
2. According to the police event record, police officers observed the applicant kicking the door of his ex-wife's car and arrested him. On the basis of the police officers' observations, as documented in the event record, we are satisfied that, in the course of an altercation with his ex-wife, the applicant kicked her car door.
3. We are satisfied that this incident is relevant to an assessment of the applicant's risk to the safety of children, although its relevance is lessened by the fact that it is now over nine years since it occurred. For the reasons set out below, we are satisfied that the applicant has since modified his behaviour such that he does not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

1 February 2013

1. A final apprehended domestic order was made against the applicant for a period of 12 months against an adult male with whom the applicant had shared a residential facility. The applicant was charged with assault, on the basis that on 1 February 2013, he had struck the man with a banana. The man sustained no injuries. The charge was dismissed pursuant to s10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
2. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the assault occurred. Given the nature of the offence - that it was one strike with a banana to an adult before the applicant walked away from the victim - the fact that it occurred over five years ago and the changes we accept the applicant has made to his lifestyle and behaviour since then, we are not satisfied that this conduct or the circumstances surrounding it demonstrate that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

6 March 2016

1. A final apprehended violence order was made against the applicant on 23 March 2016 for a period of 12 months following an altercation with the applicant's mother-in-law who the applicant had allegedly punched after she had splashed Coca Cola on him.
2. In oral and written evidence during these proceedings, the applicant stated that his mother-in-law had accosted him while he was carrying his infant son and, fearing for the child's safety, had raised his arm on reflex and made contact with his mother-in-law.
3. The applicant and his partner have recently had another child and he now has a good relationship with his partner's mother who he and his family visit and who he describes as 'a great grandmother.'
4. Given the applicant admitted to having 'made contact' with the victim's arm, we are satisfied that this conduct occurred which resulted in an apprehended violence order being issued against the applicant.
5. We are satisfied that this incident is relevant to an assessment of the applicant's risk to the safety of children. For the reasons set out below, however, we are satisfied that the applicant has since modified his behaviour such that he does not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

25 December 2016

1. Following allegations of assault made by his ex-wife, an apprehended violence order was issued against the applicant. For the reasons set out above, and in particular the statutory declaration signed by the ex-wife admitting to having made false allegations against the applicant, we find this allegation of assault to be groundless and the apprehended violence order to have been issued against the applicant on the basis of false claims by his ex-wife. For this reason, we have given no consideration to this apprehended violence order in these proceedings.

FACS notifications & risk assessment

1. In 2004, a notification was made to the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) that the applicant's child has been hit with a stick resulting in in bruising to his hands. The physical punishment was denied by the parents and the notification was not substantiated.
2. In 2006, a notification was made that the applicant had pushed and punched his now ex-wife and that the applicant's younger child had been in bed at the time of the incident while the older child had been at school.
3. In FACS notes dated 24/12/06, the following observations were made: Concerns are held for [the applicant's older children] as there are allegations that they were exposed to two..verbal disputes between..natural father..and natural mother….[The children] are considered vulnerable given their young ages as they are reportedly exposed to ongoing verbal disputes and expressed frustration over these incidents.
4. A notification dated 19 March 2007 refers to a verbal dispute between the applicant and his now ex-wife with the notation that 'there are concerns that the mother pushed the child in the pram from Belmore to Marrickville to see the father then instigated the argument.'
5. In a FACS notification dated 12 March 2008 in relation to a dispute over access visits, it was noted that the applicant didn't want his son to go with the child's mother 'because she was so upset and irrational.' The child chose to stay with the applicant.
6. In a FACS notification dated 17 February 2014, the unidentified caller expressed concern that the mother (the applicant's ex-wife) has bipolar disorder, was not taking her medication and was not sending his son to school and was not 'always feeding him'.
7. The caller was concerned about the younger child missing school with the notes stating that the '[m]other wasn't sending him to school because she was scared to be left on her own. Mother wasn't taking her medication -mental health issues. [Caller] contacted mental health term and the outcome was she was taken to hospital…[I]t is believed she is experiencing mood disorder with psychotic symptoms…The mother is paranoid about being followed whilst driving and this leads to reckless driving on her part. Both children said they don't' want to stay with the mother because of the way she is acting.'
8. A 2016 notification in relation to the applicant raising his arm to his partner's mother was determined not to meet ROSH (risk of serious harm) for risk of psychological harm 'as no information in this report as to level of DV or amount of exposure to DV.'
9. A further notification dated 1 January 2017 described an altercation between the applicant and his ex-wife at a fast food restaurant.
10. The notes state that 'Screened out as no significant risk of harm identified in this report. Children are both with their father.'
11. A risk assessment report prepared by the applicant's current employer in 2017 gave the following analysis in relation to the applicant: [DTV] provided a frank, and seemingly honest, account of his history. Despite a difficult upbringing, he stated he has turned his life around. He has sought, and continues to obtain, professional assistance in making positive changes to his life…[DTV's] last offence was in 2014 which related to driving offences. [DTV] advised, despite some lapses in judgement, he remains committed to improve his life and does not use drugs or alcohol. [DTV's] psychologist, Dr Heeps, spoke very highly of [DTV] and the positive transformation he has witnessed.. Based on this analysis, the assessors can see no reason not to progress with the employment of [DTV].
12. Having considered the FACS notifications made in relation to the applicant's children in addition to the risk assessment report prepared by the applicant's employer, we are not satisfied that they disclose any information indicating that the applicant poses a current risk to the safety of children. Rather, the FACS notifications are more concerned with the ability of the children's mother to effectively parent the children.

Expert evidence

1. Since 2009, the applicant has been attending psychological therapy sessions with the clinical psychologist, Dr Luke Heeps.
2. In oral evidence before us, the applicant explained that he had first sought therapy from Dr Heeps after the applicant's then ten-year-old son had expressed his desire to be exactly like the applicant. This had concerned the applicant who didn't believe he was the 'perfect person' so he sought help to make sure he was the 'best person' he could be, despite his origins as a foster care child. He wanted to learn how to manage his anger and to change who he was and believes that he has learnt how to better communicate.
3. In a report prepared for the applicant's court proceedings in 2013, Dr Heeps wrote: [O]ur work over the last few years has allowed [DTV] to start a whole new process of taking responsibility of his own direction in life (learning about indigenous issues, forming better relationships, enrolling in TAFE and more recently University and starting work for [State government agency]). He has experienced far less anger and conflict with others over the last 2-3 years.
4. In correspondence to the applicant's GP in 2017, Dr Heeps wrote: [DTV] has progressed remarkably well over the years we have worked together, however further sessions are recommended in order to continue to reinforce the skills and to help him deal with new triggers to distress as he experiences progress through the ranks in his career.
5. In a letter to the Children's Guardian dated 22/11/18, Dr Heeps wrote that: I have consulted with [DTV] about very intimate details of his life, his emotion and his behaviour over a period of 8 years. I have seen no substantive or concerning evidence of behaviour of him committing acts of harm or violence towards young people. I fact, I have seen the opposite as he has demonstrated a great deal of service and love and concern and genuine interest in promoting the growth of young people (e.g. through extensive discussion about his parenting and as a football coach)… I believe that [DTV] is an invaluable tool towards furthering indigenous health as already evidenced in his recent employments over the last 5 years and that he has the right psychological capacities to particularly benefit the youth that he Is currently employed to develop. Especially as someone who can relate to dealing with intense feelings from traumatised pasts and becoming victor over his life rather than continued victimisation cycles.
6. In oral evidence before this tribunal, Dr Heeps denied that the applicant had issues with anger that required management, telling the tribunal that his treatment with the applicant was primarily about discussing life stressors which included the stress of having a professional position of responsibility and, as is common with people who come from trauma, and the fear of it all being ripped away. Dr Heeps described the applicant as someone who comes to see him as necessary, who engages with the sessions and who has always tried to make his life better and to improve things.
7. Dr Heeps told the Tribunal that he had no concerns about the applicant working with children. According to Dr Heeps, the applicant: has an astute understanding of children and youth in high stress situations. A person can be a skilled and educated worker, but doesn't have the skills to understand what needs to happen moment by moment. [DTV] has a very insightful way of dealing with youth and young people because of his background and what he has done with that background. [He is] very adept at determining what is a better version of him..and to develop a career and an education where on paper you'd expect none of that. [DTV] genuinely wants to help his community and is good at it because he can 'walk the talk.'
8. Dr Heeps told the Tribunal that he has no evidence that the applicant poses a risk to children. According to Dr Heeps it is quite the opposite and that the applicant benefits the children he comes into contact with, especially complex children that other people find hard to deal with.

Applicant's evidence

1. In oral evidence before us, the applicant described the improvements he has made to his life over the past eight to ten years, which have included regular therapy sessions with Dr Heeps and developing his own career within the health sector. During this time, he has learnt to advocate for people and to help them with their own anger and feelings of despair.
2. The applicant, who impressed as an open and honest witness, told the Tribunal that as he gets older he has worked on not getting involved in verbal disagreements. He has been very involved in coaching his son's rugby team and makes a point of treating all members of the team in the same way.
3. His ability to manage difficult situations has been demonstrated in how he has managed these proceedings and he told the Tribunal that: Ten years ago, I would have been adversarial and would not have been able to manage these proceedings…My emotional maturity has changed. I have been able to manage myself in a more professional way.
4. The applicant described the satisfaction he gets from his work in the health sector where he educates people on health related matters. The applicant would like to enrol in a Masters of Psychology for which he requires a working with children check clearance
5. The applicant provided a series of references in support of these proceedings. No issue was taken with any of the references presented.
6. A reference from the applicant's manager describes him as a man who has 'turned his life around.' The applicant's work record attests to this according to the manager who also noted that the applicant has a young family he is committed to. It is the manager's view that the applicant is not a risk in relation to working with children.
7. A reference from the applicant's direct manager provides as follows: I have known [DTV] for 3 years on a professional level. [He] has volunteered..in the past..and also speaking as an inspirational indigenous male role model to groups of young people with myself at regular youth events that I managed in the past. [DTV] has always been very passionate as an educator, he demonstrates compassion and is very approachable, he is a very caring man and would go out of his way to help anyone where possible. I have also met [DTV's] family and it is obvious he is a fantastic father and caring partner. I am aware of [DTV's] criminal history and I am also aware that [DTV] has been having professional help and this has changed certain behaviours and I believe he has broken a cycle he was in, therefore I see know [sic] reason why this should impact on his employment.'
8. In his letter dated 24 September 2018, the clinical psychologist, Dr Luke Heeps, states that: I have known [DTV] as his clinical psychologist for a number of years providing therapy to him…I write this letter in support for his application for a Working with Children Check as someone that has developed a great deal of personal awareness and psychological skill over years of hard work in therapy. [DTV] has shown evidence of being a leader within his community in the health and sporting spheres and I believe he will continue to offer an invaluable contribution to both the indigenous community and the wider community at large (including to children and youth). I fully support his application for a Working With Children Check.
9. A fellow parent provided the following reference for the applicant: I worked with [DTV] throughout 2018 as a parent volunteering with our under 6s team and also helped around the club with other tasks to make sure the day-to-day running of the club went smoothly. [DTV] worked well with all parents and other staff to help create a happy and friendly environment for kids to have fun and learn important values…My experience working with [DTV] was nothing short of exceptional and I will happily have him back helping next year. I received nothing but positive feedback from everyone who crossed paths with [him].

Consideration of the s30(1) matters

1. As set out above, in determining this application and considering the question of risk, we must explicitly consider the factors set out in section 30 (1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act. The evidence will be considered under each of the following subheadings.

The seriousness of any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or the imposition of an interim bar. (s30 (1)(a))

1. The matters that led to the refusal of the applicant's working with children check clearance are the applicant's criminal record and the history of apprehended violence orders being issued against him, all of which are considered above.
2. We accept that the applicant has had a volatile relationship with his ex-wife, which has resulted in verbal and physical altercations. On the evidence before us, we accept that the ex-wife's mental health issues contributed to these altercations. This does not excuse the applicant's physical aggression towards her, which, for the reasons set out above, we accept occurred in 2006 and 2009 (but, again for the reasons set out above, we do not accept occurred in 2016 in 2017, contrary to the allegations by the applicant's ex-wife).
3. Any aggression, especially in the presence of children, is of concern to us. Having considered all the evidence before us, however - including reports by the applicant's treating psychologist and the applicant's employer - we are satisfied that since 2010, the applicant has turned his life around such that we agree with the Children's Guardian that he does not pose a current risk to the safety of children.

The period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred (s30(1)(b))

1. The first of the assault matters with which the applicant was charged occurred in 2006, the last on Christmas Day in 2016 (which was subsequently withdrawn and dismissed).

The age of the person at the time the matters occurred (s30(1)(c))

1. The applicant was 28 years old when charged with the first assault and 38 when charged with the most recent assault (which was later withdrawn and dismissed).

The age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time they occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim (s30(1)(d))

1. The victims varied in age but were generally adult female women.

The difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person (s30(1)(e))

1. The age difference varied.

Whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known that the victim was a child (s30(1)(f))

1. The complainants were not children.

The person's present age (s30(1)(g))

1. The applicant is 41 years old.

The seriousness of the person's total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred (s30(1)(h))

1. The applicant's criminal record began in 1992, when he was 14 years old. The applicant has convictions for assault, motor vehicle theft, possession of prohibited drugs and various driving offences.
2. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that despite his criminal record, the applicant has turned his life around, having progressed his education and become employed in the health sector where his work is lauded by his employer and colleagues. We are also satisfied that he is highly regarded as a football coach for his son's team and has gained the trust of the parents involved with the team and the organisers of the competition.

The likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition (s30(1)(i))

1. On the evidence before us, with particular regard to the written and oral evidence of the applicant's psychologist, Dr Heeps, we are satisfied that there is little likelihood of any criminal reoffending by the applicant, the repetition of which would have an impact on children by potentially exposing them to aggressive behaviour. We are satisfied that the applicant has matured and has transformed himself into a valued employee in the health sector having worked hard to educate himself. We accept that he is a committed parent who has been respected for his work as coach for his son's football team. We are buoyed in our view by the Children's Guardian's support for the applicant's application for review.

Any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person (s30(1)(il)

1. There are no court or tribunal orders in force in relation to the applicant.

Information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application (s30(1)(j))

1. In support of his application for review, the applicant gave oral evidence and submitted statutory declarations and professional and personal references, all of which are considered above. We found the applicant to be an open and truthful witness.

Any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A (s30(jl)

1. No further information has been provided.

Any other matters that the Children's Guardian considers necessary (s30(1)(k))

1. In conducting its risk assessment, the Children's Guardian obtained a copy of a risk assessment report prepared by the applicant's employer. The report states that the applicant 'provided a frank and seemingly honest account of his history.'

Conclusion on section 30(1) matters

1. The question for the Tribunal is this: in light of all the evidence, does the applicant pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children? If the answer is no, he must be granted a working with children check clearance.
2. For the reasons set out above, we accept that whilst the applicant has a criminal record that involves convictions for assault and the issuing of apprehended violence orders, we are satisfied that, over the past decade, the applicant has transformed his life such that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

Section 30(1A) considerations

1. Section 30 (1A) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 prohibits the Tribunal from making an order allowing a person to work with children unless satisfied that: 1. a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the affected person that was not directly supervised by another person while the affected person was engaged in child-related work, and 2. it is in the public interest to make such an order

Would a reasonable person allow his or her child to have direct, unsupervised contact with the applicant whilst he is engaged in child-related work?

1. The reasonable person test was considered in VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VCAT 789 where it was said that the test requires: the application of an objective standard based upon the views of the reasonable person. The reasonable person would, in reaching his or her conclusions, acquaint himself or herself with all the matters that have been placed before me, giving the applicant for a positive assessment the right to be heard, as well as considering the material gathered by the Secretary. A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind, thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area in some over-optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.
2. In order to properly consider whether a reasonable person would allow the applicant to have direct, unsupervised contact with their children, a "reasonable person" would need to know the applicant's criminal history including the issuing of apprehended violence orders against him. The reasonable person would also need to be aware of the applicant's ex-wife's mental health issues and the acknowledge that she has made false allegations against the applicant in the past. The reasonable person would be aware of the references given in support of the applicant, his reputation as a valuable employee in the health sector and football coach and the reports of his treating psychologist, Dr Heeps.
3. Having regard to the material before us and for the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that a reasonable person with knowledge of this information would allow his or her child to have direct, unsupervised contact with the applicant whilst he is engaged in child-related work.

Is it in the public interest to make the orders sought by the applicant?

1. Whether it is in the public interest to make an order enabling a particular applicant to work with children will depend upon all the relevant facts of which the Tribunal is aware. CHB v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
2. The Tribunal must consider the public interest in the context of section 4 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, which provides that the safety, welfare and well-being of children and in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration.
3. The public interest test requires the Tribunal, in the context of the paramount consideration (the safety, welfare and well-being of children and in particular, protecting them from child abuse), to consider broader community or public interests as well as private interests, with the public interest being of at least equal importance to the private interests of the applicant. Mielczarek v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 255; CYY v Children's Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262
4. In Secretary, Department of Justice v LMB; Secretary, Department of Justice v PMY [2012] VSCA 143, at [24]-[26] the Victorian Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the term "public interest" in the context of the equivalent provision in the Victorian Act. In those paragraphs the Victorian Court of Appeal said: "[24] As French CJ, Gummow and Crennan JJ stated in ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2009] HCA 51; (2009) 240 CLR 140]: The term 'in the public interest' is one of broad import. When used in a statute, the term classically imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute in question. [25] In the present instance, the Act itself plainly identifies the primary public interest to which it is addressed. The main purpose of the Act is stated to be to assist in 'protecting children from sexual or physical harm'. The Act does this by 'ensuring that people who work with, or care for [children] have their suitability to do so checked by a government body'. [26] The Act grants an administrative discretion to the Tribunal which requires the Tribunal, once the discretion has been enlivened by a finding that there is no unjustifiable risk, to consider for itself whether the giving of a notice will be in the public interest."
5. For the reasons set out above, we are not satisfied that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. Having regard to the material before us, we are satisfied that it is in the public interest to make the orders sought by the applicant. In making this finding, we accept that the applicant is a valuable asset to the health sector, a much-admired coach for his young son's football team and an Indigenous male role model.

Decision

1. For the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to children. We have also decided that a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the applicant that was not directly supervised by another person while the applicant was engaged in child-related work, and that it is in the public interest to make such an order.

Orders 1. The decision of the respondent dated 30 January 2018 to cancel the applicant's working with children check clearance is set aside. 2. In substitution for this decision the following decision is made: the applicant is to be granted a working with children check clearance.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar

Amendments 03 December 2019 - Case title corrected. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 December 2019