FWJ v Children's Guardian

FWJ v Children's Guardian - [2024] NSWCATAD 184 - NSWCATAD 2024 case summary — Zoe

[4]

Overview

In this case the applicant sought administrative review under s 27(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) ('the Act') of the decision of the Children's Guardian made on 18 May 2023 to refuse to grant a working with children check clearance to him on the grounds that he poses a risk to the safety of children ('the Refusal Decision').
The respondent had previously approved the applicant for a clearance on 18 March 2015. The applicant applied for a renewal of his clearance on 13 March 2020. In the course of considering that renewal application, the respondent became aware of some aspects of the applicant's criminal history insofar as it included convictions for the offences of assault, domestic violence, and contraventions of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders ('ADVOs'). The respondent determined that a risk assessment pursuant to s 15(3) of the Act was required, and advised the applicant accordingly on 21 April 2020.
Subsequently, on 3 May 2022, an internal team discussion within the office of the Children's Guardian recommended that further information be sought from the Department of Communities and Justice ('DCJ') to clarify whether there were any concerns regarding the applicant's children. Enquiries of DCJ revealed details of a coronial inquest into the death (in October 2004) of a child who had been in the care of the applicant at the time ('Child A'). Whilst the cause of death of Child A could not be determined, the coroner was satisfied on the basis of the overwhelming medical evidence that the applicant had abused the child.
The enquiries made of DCJ further revealed that the applicant had subsequently been convicted of neglect of Child A pursuant to s 228 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) ('the Care Act') and was fined $4,000.00. An offence under s 228 of the Care Act triggers a risk assessment pursuant to Schedule 1(1)(3)(c) of the Act ('the Trigger Offence').
The applicant was advised on 17 June 2022 that he was subject to an Interim Bar because the information before the Children's Guardian indicated that he likely posed a risk to the safety of children.
In the course of undertaking a risk assessment, the respondent received notice on 28 August 2022 that the applicant had been charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm against his wife. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted in the Local Court proceedings on 21 November 2022. He was sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of 18 months, expiring on 20 May 2024 (around 3 months after the hearing date of the current application before this Tribunal). An ADVO was made on 21 November 2022 for the protection of the applicant's wife for a period of two years (and thus, at the date of this Decision, was still current).
After completing its risk assessment, the respondent advised the applicant on 23 December 2022 that it was proposed that his application for clearance would be refused. The applicant was invited to submit further information in support of his application and did so on 20 February 2023, together with supporting documents including a statement from his wife.
On 18 May 2023, the respondent informed the applicant that he had been refused a clearance. His application for administrative review dated 12 June 2023 was filed on 21 June 2023.
In support of his application for administrative review, the applicant argued that he should be given a clearance because of the passage of time since the death of Child A in 2004 and the public interest benefit that would be derived from the applicant's commitment to the indigenous community by pursuing a career in social work focused on that particular disadvantaged community group.
The applicant sought orders that the Tribunal set aside the Refusal Decision and direct the Children's Guardian to issue him with a clearance.
The respondent maintained its position, arguing that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, and sought orders to have the Refusal Decision affirmed.
On the evidence before us, we have decided that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Refusal Decision. Our reasons follow.

[6]

Material and evidence before the Tribunal

The following material was filed on behalf of the applicant: 1. A bundle of documents filed on 29 September 2023 including: 1. a statement dated 27 September 2023 from the applicant; 2. a statement dated 3 September 2023 from LG in support of the application; 3. a letter dated 6 September 2023 from MC, a psychologist who provided counselling to the applicant ('Treating Psychologist'); 4. an undated letter of support from EM, a friend of the applicant; 5. a statement dated 26 September 2023 in support of the application from NC, a former work colleague of the applicant; 6. a statement dated 28 September 2023 in support of the application from NM, a former student who was taught by the applicant; (altogether, marked for identification as "Exhibit A1"). 1. A further bundle of documents filed on 23 October 2023 including: 1. a statement dated 7 September 2023 in support of the application from EW, a friend of the applicant; 2. a statement dated 25 September 2023 from EM, replacing the document in the bundle marked "A1" and referred to at 14(1)(d) above; 1. (together, marked for identification as "Exhibit A2"). 2. a report dated 5 November 2023 prepared by Ms Jodhi Kirk, a senior social worker, tendered as an expert's report (marked for identification as "Exhibit A3"); 3. an additional statement dated 11 December 2023 from the applicant (marked for identification as "Exhibit A4"); 4. a further additional statement dated 1 February 2024 from the applicant (marked for identification as "Exhibit A5"); 5. a further letter of support dated 7 February 2024 from Ms EM (marked for identification as "Exhibit A6"); 6. an additional statement dated 7 February 2024 from NC (marked for identification as "Exhibit A7"); 7. a document headed "Outline of Expected Evidence of [the applicant's wife]" dated 7 February 2024 and tendered as an aide memoire (marked for identification as "Exhibit A8"); 8. submissions dated 11 December 2023 (not marked); 9. reply submissions dated 7 February 2024 (not marked).
The following material was filed on behalf of the respondent: 1. a bundle of documents filed on 21 July 2023 pursuant to s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (marked for identification as "Exhibit R1"); 2. further bundle of documents filed on 11 August 2023 (marked for identification as "Exhibit R2"); 3. supplementary bundle of documents filed on 18 August 2023 (marked for identification as "Exhibit R3"); 4. evidence in reply bundle of documents filed on 30 November 2023 (marked for identification as "Exhibit R4"); 5. submissions dated 16 January 2024 (not marked).

[9]

Issue for the Tribunal's determination

On the fundamental issue, i.e. whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, the Tribunal must determine what the "correct and preferable" decision is: s 63(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ("the ADR Act").
For the purpose of determining an application for administrative review, the Tribunal exercises all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision (in this case, the Children's Guardian): s 63(2) of the ADR Act
However, in exercising those functions, the Tribunal must not simply "stand in the shoes" of an administrator. The Tribunal does not conduct a review of the Refusal Decision. The Tribunal reviews the application for clearance 'de novo' (meaning 'afresh' or 'again'). As explained in DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136 at [21], the Tribunal must conduct its review without any presumption as to the correctness of an administrator's decision: "The effect of these two subsections is sometimes characterised as the Tribunal being required to "stand in the shoes" of the administrator who made the decision. But that is not entirely accurate. I must conduct this review without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision: McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521 at [530] and I am required to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before me. It is clear that that may include material which postdates the making of the decision: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 ('YG') at [25], Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77."
The Tribunal has regard to the material before it, including material that may not have been before the Children's Guardian, and the applicable law: YG at [25], per Hodgson JA (with whom Foster and Brownie A-JJA agreed); applied in BHY v Children's Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91 at [14].

[23]

Significant intimate relationships

The timeline of the applicant's significant intimate relationships is important for understanding the context in which his relevant criminal conduct and behaviour occurred.
He is the father of three older children (now aged 29, 26 and 21) from his first significant relationship with the biological mother of those children ("First Partner"). Their relationship lasted for around 9 years, from 1995 to early 2004.
Since 2004, the applicant has been in a long term relationship with the person he refers to as his wife ("Second Partner"). However, that relationship has been subject to periods of separation of varying lengths of time during those 20 years.
The applicant's oral evidence was that he was in the relationship with his First Partner when he learned that he was the biological father of the Second Partner's child ('Child A'). As a result, the applicant moved in with his Second Partner in or around April 2004. His evidence was that he was living with his Second Partner and Child A during the working week, and on weekends he was with his First Partner and their three children. Under cross-examination, he said that he felt responsibility for Child A and he also needed to spend time with his family (and we understood this to mean his family with his First Partner).
Tragically, Child A died under very sad circumstances in October 2004, at the age of 3. The coronial inquest into the death of Child A (including the coroner's findings against the applicant) is discussed in these Reasons.
The applicant and his wife separated in 2009, then rekindled their relationship before separating again in 2013 (noting that the applicant's eldest child with his next partner was born in that year). The applicant and his wife subsequently resumed their relationship in 2018.
He is also the father of three younger children now aged 11, 10 and 8 ('Child B', 'Child C' and 'Child D'), from his third significant relationship with another partner ("Third Partner") starting in around September 2011 and ending in around September 2016.
In about July 2015, the applicant started another relationship with a person we refer to as "the Fourth Partner" who is the mother of another child now aged around 13 or 14 ('Child E'). The applicant is not the biological father of that child. It appears that this ex-partner was pregnant with the applicant's child but suffered a miscarriage at 8 weeks' gestation. It would appear that, whilst the applicant was embarking on this new relationship, his previous Third Partner became pregnant with the applicant's child who was born in December 2016 (Child D). The applicant's relationship with the Fourth Partner came to an end in January 2017.

[24]

Education, training and employment history

The applicant's education, training and complex employment history from 1995 is set out in various documents including his submission dated 21 April 2020 to the Children's Guardian, his CV, his written statement dated 27 September 2023 and written submissions made on his behalf in proceedings before this Tribunal. There are some inconsistencies in dates and the descriptions of courses undertaken at tertiary level, however those inconsistencies are relatively minor and have no impact upon our assessment of the evidence overall. A summary of the applicant's education, training and employment endeavours is set out in Schedule 1, with his more recent employment history described below.
The applicant has generally worked and studied contemporaneously, seeking to create career opportunities for himself.
One of the most significant periods in the applicant's employment occurred from February 2022 to August 2022 when he was employed as a Redress Counsellor with an Aboriginal organisation offering counselling, guidance and support to individuals who had endured child sexual abuse within institutions. (For clarity, we note that the many references to "Address Counsellor" in documents before the Tribunal should refer to "Redress Counsellor").
Shortly after being appointed as a Redress Counsellor, the applicant was accredited as an Instructor of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health First Aid Course. The 14-hour course was described as a course for providing initial help to a person who is developing a mental health problem or experiencing a mental health crisis. It covered such issues as cultural competence, cultural shame, recognising symptoms of depression, understanding the impact of traumatic events on a person, and suicidal thoughts and behaviour.
Also early into his role as a Redress Counsellor, from 29 March to 1 April 2022, the applicant receiving training in a 4-day Marumali Program. This program studied the history and effect of the Stolen Generations and the applicant said it gave him insight into his own lifestyle and how he was raised. Unfortunately, as set out in his statement dated 27 September 2023, the applicant appears to have been re-traumatised as a result: "I self-reflected on the traumas experienced and how it filters through families. However, I found that I experienced emotional challenges while taking this course because I identify as the first generation of a member of the stolen generation."
The organisation that employed the applicant traces and reunites families, especially members of the Stolen Generation. His role involved reuniting family members who have been separated, and so it involved a lot of travelling and driving. He experienced secondary trauma, burnout and confronting personal struggles. In his statement dated 27 September 2023, he recounted the stress of the role: "My role was to investigate, counsel and prepare documents and statements for people who had been sexually abused in institutions whilst under care of a church. These were historical sexual abuse cases. I had over 40 clients and was working with both males and females throughout NSW over an 8 month period. Looking back, I was suffering from burnout and vicarious trauma. The life events I was learning from my clients were very serious and traumatic. Dealing with these events weighed heavily on me and affected my own mental health."
The applicant was successfully interviewed in June 2023 for a role as a Social Worker, a role he aspired to as his "dream job". In July 2023, he applied for a role as a Mental Health Support Worker with an Aboriginal medical service. Neither applications could be progressed because of his lack of clearance.
After being charged with assault of his wife on 27 August 2022, an event he did not remember following a session of heavy drinking on that day, the applicant ceased working as a Redress Counsellor.
In January 2023, he started work as a mature age apprentice electrician. However, his employer required the applicant to have a clearance in order to work on school contracts. In another employment opportunity as an apprentice electrician, the applicant encountered the same difficulty due to the work involving government contracts. He then obtained another electrical apprenticeship opportunity but his work was limited without having a clearance. The applicant ultimately resigned from his apprenticeship.
In late October or early November 2023, the applicant started working as a Bartender in a regional area of New South Wales, and remains employed in that role for around 10 to 15 hours per week.

[33]

MC, Treating Psychologist - October/November 2022

Following a DUI charge against him for driving with a middle range PCA on 3 October 2022, the applicant saw MC on a range of dates in October and November 2022. MC's notes record that the applicant was seeking abstinence and relapse prevention, having used alcohol "for years".
On 13 October 2022, MC recorded that the applicant had been diagnosed with depression in his 20s, and with PTSD.
MC's notes refer to predisposing and perpetuating factors. Those considered to be predisposing were that the applicant had been sexually abused as a child, and had developmental trauma and cultural confusion. The perpetuating factors were said to include "unresolved trauma" and "unresolved anger". One of the priority factors was noted to be "risk of relapse".
The notes also identify relevant protective factors, that the applicant is "motivated for change", has "good insight" and is "treatment seeking". Community Mental Health Reports, September to December 2022
At the same time that he attended consultations with MC, the applicant attended community mental health assessment consultations with registered nurses, either in community health centres or in a home setting, from early September until 11 November 2022.
The community mental health report noted the applicant had a history of suicidal ideation and had become overwhelmed with sadness related to his own trauma background during his work with Aboriginal services as a social worker. The report noted he had started consuming large volumes of alcohol and was binge drinking to blackout stage, at least 3-4 times a week, for around 10 months culminating in the assault on his wife. The report also noted the applicant had attempted to hang himself on 29 August 2022, and had researched on the internet how to make a noose, but was stopped by a phone call from a mate.
The applicant was described as an "impulsive person", although it is not clear whether that was his self-reflection or an observation made. With respect to a rating as to his "dangerousness", the report noted that in the then-present episode of illness, he was "unpredictable, impulsive, violent". He was described as having questionable impulse control. In terms of his ability to cooperate, he was reported to be actively seeking treatment and was willing and able to cooperate. In a further note in the report (date unclear), the applicant expressed an interest in participating in an anger management program and referral to a drug and alcohol service.
In a further note in the report, the overall clinical impression was that the applicant suffered "aggression and anger when under the influence of alcohol leading to impulsivity and disinhibition in relationships".
In around mid-September 2022, the report noted that the applicant had improved and was focussing on the future. He wanted a psychiatry report for court purposes and was scheduled to see the psychiatrist on 5 October 2022.
The nurse left a message for the applicant on 4 October 2022 to remind him of his appointment with the psychiatrist and received a text message in which the applicant said he had relapsed the day before. In a subsequent phone call, the applicant said that he was aware of the appointment, that he was struggling and thought he needed to be on Antabuse or something similar.
During a home visit on 7 October 2022, the applicant said he had commenced on Naltrexone (anti-craving medication) and recognised the importance of not having alcohol nearby and the influence it had had on events in his life over the years, particularly more recently. He said he had attended AA for the first time and intended to attend more. His risk of harm to self and others was assessed as being lower as at that date.
The applicant was seen again in his home on 12 October 2022 when he advised the nurse that the anti-depressant and Naltrexone were working well for him.
The last note in the community mental health report recorded on 11 November 2022 that the applicant was seen in his home. He was assessed as being more positive and his risk of harm to self and others remained at low. The community mental health discharge summary dated 21 December 2022 recorded diagnoses of alcohol dependence, major depression and PTSD symptoms, and noted that the applicant was seeing his Counsellor for EMDR.

[34]

Mental health assessment, Statewide Community & Court Liaison Service, 17 November 2022

A report dated 17 November 2022 addressed to the relevant Local Court Magistrate, was prepared by a Clinical Nurse Consultant (Mental Health) for the purpose of Court proceedings concerning the applicant's assault on his wife in August 2022. The report was prepared in consultation with Dr ZZ, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and referenced the applicant's local health medical records. The applicant's childhood was described as dysfunctional and unhappy, and marred by domestic related violence between his parents, as well as poverty and poor parental supervision. The report noted that the applicant had experienced childhood sexual trauma that was never reported to authorities.
The report noted that the applicant had been referred to a community mental health service after he had expressed suicidal thoughts to hang himself shortly after the assault on his wife, and was engaged in two-weekly psychological counselling to address his mental health issues. He was said to have been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD and that he met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder. The report stated that the applicant was attending regular psychiatric review and attached a copy of the report dated 5 October 2022 from Dr HR, Psychiatrist.
In terms of alcohol consumption, the applicant self-reported that he had commenced drinking alcohol in his teens on a social basis and had always been a social drinker up until twelve months previously when his consumption increased significantly. He admitted to regular binge drinking, with increased daily consumption. The report noted the applicant was attending a weekly community Drug and Alcohol service and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to address his alcohol use.
The report noted that the applicant was continuing to experience mood variability and self-described his mood as "not good". He did not display any irritability or psychomotor agitation during the consultation, and his thoughts were described as cohesive and sequential. The applicant denied any suicidal thoughts, plans or intent, and demonstrated good insight into the need for ongoing treatment and support in the community.
In terms of his ongoing treatment, the report noted that the applicant was not a mentally ill person under the NSW Mental Health Act 2007, but requires on-going psychiatric care and support in the community. The report stated that the applicant was suffering from: "…. A mental health impairment with temporary or ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory and the disturbance is regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes and the disturbance impairs the emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour of the person".
Finally, the report stated that the applicant had agreed to comply with a proposed treatment plan including that he: 1. accept all care and direction of his GP (Dr YW) and remain compliant to his prescribed medications and/or changes made to his care; 2. attend all scheduled appointments with a psychologist as directed, with his next appointment being 28 November 2022 with Ms EL, psychologist (no report appeared in the material before the Tribunal); 3. attend scheduled appointments with the community mental health service, with his next psychiatric review being on 30 November 2022 (no report appeared in the material before the Tribunal); 4. continue to engage with Drug and Alcohol services and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on a weekly basis.

[36]

MC, Psychologist, Reports in April, August, September 2023

In a clinical note dated 27 April 2023, MC recorded that the applicant had disclosed that, on 5 days out of 7 and over a period of a "few months", he consumed 10 standard drinks, and that his most recent use was the day before, i.e. 26 April 2023. He disclosed that he suffered childhood trauma and depression, and had a history of suicidal ideation. Nonetheless, the notes record that there were no mental health issues of immediate concern, the applicant was taking Avanza and had been referred to the Drug and Alcohol Team.
In a subsequent consultation on 4 August 2023, the applicant stated that the process of appealing the Guardian's Refusal Decision had brought past experiences, emotions and memories to the surface, largely related to the death of his son (Child A).
Four days later, on 8 August 2023, the applicant disclosed that he had been experiencing cravings for alcohol, but had maintained abstinence. The notes stated "Reminded of the cognitive impact of alcohol in a time requiring cognitive attention for memory and documenting his perspective" in connection with his appeal of the Guardian's decision.
A week later, on 15 August 2023, MC's clinical notes record that he saw no overt signs of intoxication or withdrawal and the applicant self-reported that he had maintained abstinence.
In another record of consultation dated 29 August 2023, MC noted that the applicant's alcohol consumption had historically been 1-2 cases daily but that he had ceased drinking "a few weeks ago" and was seeking "relapse prevention". This record confirmed that the applicant had been sexually abused as a child by an uncle and that his work with survivors of child sexual abuse had been triggering for him.
In a reference dated 6 September 2023, MC stated that the applicant does not meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder but has alcohol cravings and "past problematic alcohol use". The reference stated that the applicant had maintained his goals around alcohol, managing cravings appropriately.
MC noted that the applicant had received diagnoses of depression and complex PTSD in the past, with some symptoms re-emerging during periods of stress. He noted that the applicant had been attending weekly or fortnightly appointments since October 2022, with a focus on relapse prevention and support around stressors relating to employment, his finances and his appeal regarding his working with children check clearance.

[47]

Second limb of the two-part test under s 30(1)(b) - the "public interest" test

The second limb of the two-part test is referred to as the "public interest" test. The notion of "public interest" was addressed by the High Court of Australia in ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162 in which French CJ, Gummow and Crennan JJ said at [20]: "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."
Accordingly, in proceedings under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the "public interest" must be considered in light of the paramount purpose of the Act, namely, to ensure the protection of children from sexual or physical harm: s 4 of the Act.
When applying the public interest test, the Victorian Supreme Court has endorsed a broad and not a narrow approach: ZZ v Secretary Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 ('ZZ') per Bell J at [205]. While emphasising the main purpose of the Victorian legislation (equivalent to the NSW legislation) is the protection of children from harm, the decision in ZZ at [202] also acknowledged the relevance and importance of rehabilitating offenders and their right to work. The private interests of an applicant such as their right to work in their chosen area of employment are also a factor to be taken into consideration insofar as those private interests also have a broader community benefit as per Bell J at [203]: "In the context of the right to work, the tribunal has (in my view, correctly) taken into account the public interest in enabling persons to engage in their chosen field of employment or in the field in which they are most suited to work, in not lightly turning people away from their commitment to a chosen career and in encouraging people to use their qualifications, experience and expertise for the benefit of others."
The concept of public interest has been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of giving priority to the broad interests of the community over private interests: Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184; CYY at [75].
If the Tribunal is not satisfied that an applicant has met either of the first or second limbs in the two-part test, it is precluded from making an order enabling the applicant to work with children.

[48]

The approach to fact finding and the assessment of risk

In recognition of the protective jurisdiction of the Act and the paramount consideration being the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the Tribunal is bound to follow the decision in BKE at [33] when assessing risk: "Thus in such cases it may be that NCAT can be satisfied that an allegation of sexual abuse against an applicant is established. Equally, NCAT may be affirmatively satisfied that the relevant incident did not occur, in which case it can be put aside. However, in a context where the welfare of the child is paramount and the question being posed concerns the risk of harm to children, NCAT may not be satisfied that an allegation of abuse has been made out, but nevertheless conclude that the circumstances surrounding a particular incident or course of conduct means that there is a risk to a child or, more correctly, that the existence of a risk has not been disproven."
The approach to fact finding as explained in BKE at [33] has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Tilley v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174 (Tilley) at [34]-[45] and in CXZ per Simpson AJA at [57]: "The task of the Tribunal is, to expand on what Beech-Jones J said in BKE, to determine, even if it is unable to be satisfied one way or the other as to the truth of all or any of the allegations, whether, by reason of the possibility that the alleged conduct occurred, the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. [emphasis in original] If so, the Tribunal must refuse to grant a clearance. Of course, in that process the Tribunal will give consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the allegations and will, inevitably, reach conclusions about the truth or falsity of some. If it finds any allegation to be without foundation it will discard it from further consideration. If it is satisfied that the allegation is well founded, it will assign to it such weight as it sees fit, in the consideration (inter alia) of the circumstances listed in s 30. It is the allegations between those two extremes, those that are neither proved nor disproved, that the Tribunal must address in determining whether the applicant for a clearance poses a risk to children."
Thus, relying upon the analysis in CXZ at [51], many cases will not lend themselves to definitive factual determination. Where an allegation is neither "well founded" nor "groundless", the Tribunal must decide whether, on the evidence before it, the possibility that the conduct did occur justifies a finding that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children: CXZ at [52]. The assessment and the weight to be assigned to allegations will depend upon the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of any evidentiary support for those allegations, and the relevance of the conduct the subject of the allegations to the risk to the safety of children if a clearance is granted to the applicant: CXZ at [53].
A positive finding by the Tribunal that alleged conduct has taken place will generally be determinative of an application: Office of the Children's Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWSC 1406 (CFW) at [14]-[15], per Justice Harrison: "The first proposition is that, in assessing whether there is a risk to the safety of children, the court or tribunal should first consider whether (a) positive findings can be made as to any alleged act(s) of wrongdoing on the balance of probabilities, or (b) whether the court or tribunal has "no hesitation in rejecting the allegation as groundless". A positive finding on the balance of probabilities that relevant conduct has taken place, if such a finding can be made, will generally have a "decisive impact" on the outcome of the application. The second proposition is that, even if no such "positive finding" can be made, the court or tribunal is still obliged to consider questions of risk that may be indicated by all of the facts, unless it is determined that the allegation is "groundless"."
In determining the application, the Tribunal is required to consider "the totality of the evidence": BKE at [28] citing The Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136 at [83]-[84]. The Tribunal is to make a decision based on the "cumulative effect" of the matters before it: CYY at [69]-[71].

[54]

Coronial Inquest into the death of Child A

The circumstances surrounding the death of Child A are plainly described by the Coroner who, despite being unable to say the manner and cause of death, found that the evidence was overwhelming that the applicant abused the child.
Child A had lived with the applicant's wife and his maternal grandmother and her husband from his birth in January 2001 to April 2004. In April 2004, the applicant started living with his wife and Child A.
Two months later, on 24 June 2004, the child was admitted to hospital with a 3cm friction burn in the centre of his forehead, significant bruising to his left eye and the left side of his face, swelling to the back of his head and bleeding in his left eye. He also had rib fractures which, according to medical opinion, are usually associated with squeezing around the chest. The child's treating paediatrician expressed the view that the injuries were life-threatening and that it was fortunate the child was not left with permanent deficits. A medical report dated 23 August 2004 concluded that the injuries were at the "severe end of the spectrum" and there was no explanation for the rib fractures.
According to her record of interview, the applicant's wife had left for work at 8am on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 and left Child A in the care of the applicant. She called 5 or 6 times during the day to check on the child and during one of the calls the applicant said that the child had kicked a football, fell and hit his eye on the applicant's knee while he was kneeling. Two days later, on Thursday, 24 June 2004, she went to work again and left the child in the care of the applicant. During one of her calls to check on the child, the applicant told her that the child had dived for the football and sustained a carpet burn to his forehead. Later that night, she and the applicant noticed a soft spot to the crown of the child's head and, as a result, took him to hospital.
DOCS records noted that the child had been admitted to hospital with "multiple non-accidental injuries" and that "the mother's explanation was not considered consistent with the injuries". The child was assumed into the care of DOCS, and was subsequently discharged into the care of his maternal grandmother on 30 June 2004.
On 8 September 2004, the applicant and his wife agreed to undertakings that the child would not be left in the care of the applicant without another nominated person present for the ensuing 12 months.
On 26 October 2004, the child was again taken to hospital by the applicant and his wife, and was pronounced dead 40 minutes later. The child was observed to have extensive bruising to his face, purple discolouration on his left and right cheeks and forehead, blood that was not yet congealed at his mouth and nostrils, a red discolouration to his chest and a brown discolouration to his right forearm. The autopsy report opined that the pattern of injuries in totality was not that of an accident and there was "evidence of recent blunt force injury", but the cause of death was not clear.
According to the applicant's statement in proceedings before this Tribunal, his wife had been in the shower when the child had a tantrum. The applicant could see that the child's lip was bleeding a little and his cheek looked a bit red, and he applied an ice pack to the child's cheek. He stayed home to look after the child while his wife went to work. This was contrary to the undertakings they had made about not leaving the child alone with the applicant. He put the child in a shallow bath and stepped outside to hang washing. When he came back inside, the child was vomiting water. He assumed the child had swallowed some of the bath water and was spitting it out. According to the applicant, the child looked "fine". He took him out of the bath, dried and dressed him, and watched TV with him. The applicant said that he had wrestled with the child who was laughing and appeared to not suffer any debilitation from what had happened earlier. He put the child to bed and checked on him every half hour or hour. When his wife came home at 4pm, they checked on him together and noticed the child was not breathing. They took him to hospital where the applicant and his wife were informed that the child had died.
The applicant's evidence was that he did not hit or hurt or abuse the child. He said that it was traumatising enough to lose his child, and even more distressing that other people who were not present on the day say that he had abused his child. He said the loss has been devastating and heartbreaking for him and his wife.
The applicant stated that he had been trained as an ambulance officer and in his assessment the child did not exhibit symptoms that necessitated a trip to the emergency room.
The Coroner rejected the applicant's account and had regard to the evidence of the applicant's wife that when she came home the child was cold to touch. The Coroner rejected the applicant's assertion that whilst the child was cold to touch his breathing was shallow and he still had a pulse. The Coroner was satisfied that the child was deceased at that time, and was satisfied that the child had been abused by the applicant both in June 2004 and on the day of his death.
The applicant did not agree with the Coroner's findings. It is a matter of concern that the applicant recently told MC that he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. In notes of his consultation with the applicant on 15 November 2022, MC recorded the following: "He stated that there was a coronial inquiry, with [the applicant] being found not guilty of any wrongdoing. He stated that he only found out the male child existed 8 months prior to his death, at age 3. He stated that the mother of the child informed him of the child 2 years after he was born although he said it may be another males (sic) biological son also, however died without [the applicant] finding out."
The applicant's submission to the Children's Guardian dated 20 February 2023, minimises his conduct by saying that he only received a fine and was not charged or convicted which is not true, and demonstrates he has not appreciated the seriousness of his conviction: "[Child A] died in 2004 and at the time he was in my care. I previously was an Ambulance Officer and I thought he was okay. However, that was not the case and I was fined not charged or convicted to (sic) failure to receive medical attention."
Under cross-examination when it was suggested to him that a big part of his case is to reflect on his conduct, the applicant became visibly impatient and responded that there are "two sides to every story". He then added that there are three (and we understood he meant this to explain that he had his account of what had happened, his wife had her account of what had happened, and then there is the truth as to what had happened).

[56]

Trigger Offence proceedings March 2009

On 17 June 2008, DCJ (formerly known as DOCS) brought a prosecution against the applicant under s 228 of the Care Act for the offence of neglect in failing to provide medical care to Child A or to obtain adequate medical care for him.
A Statement of Facts prepared on behalf of DCJ recorded information provided by an Uncle of the applicant's wife 3 days after the child's death that the applicant and his wife had decided not to take the child to the doctor after his tantrum because they feared that DOCS would intervene. The applicant's First Partner is also reported to have told Police on 8 November 2004 that the applicant had told her that they did not take the child for medical treatment because they were frightened of DOCS. In his statement dated 1 February 2024 to the Tribunal, he rejected submissions made on behalf of the Children's Guardian that he was concerned about DOCS becoming involved, saying it was not a true characterisation of his character and his past conduct. Yet, when giving his oral evidence to this Tribunal, and asked whether concerns about DOCS formed part of his mindset at the time, the applicant answered "possibly", and said it had been a joint decision not to take the child to the doctor earlier than they did on 26 October 2004.
The applicant pleaded guilty and did not attend the hearing due to work commitments in Western Australia. In a letter to the Magistrate, he acknowledged that he had made a mistake to leave the child in the bath. He also stated that since the child's death he had isolated himself from kids as he "did not want to hurt them".
In March 2009, the applicant was convicted and received a fine of $4,000. His Honour made the following comments in sentencing: "… we have an accused who was admitted into the initial training for the ambulance service. Now when he commenced he may not have lasted very long, but at least he met the prerequisites to enter such an occupation at that time, and I am assuming that he is a person of average intelligence who would be concerned about the welfare of a child who's bleeding from the mouth has carpet burns and has these contusions to the head area, and in fact any injury to the head would ring alarm bells for the majority of people. I find no merit in the submissions that he asked me to accept that he really didn't think it was that bad. I am more inclined to accept the version that he also puts to the court he was concerned about DOCS becoming involved again and launching another inquiry. But in my opinion, notwithstanding anything that I have said, this comes towards the top end of the penalty which I can impose. In looking to reduce it I cannot reduce it because of his prior good character. He has matters of violence. I am not suggesting this is a matter of violence, but a matter of concern."
His Honour expressed the view that the available penalties were "completely inadequate" and stated "I don't resile that there should be provision for gaol in these matters".
His Honour's comments demonstrate the seriousness of the applicant's offence.

[59]

First Partner - Assault and breach of ADVO in July 2004

According to the Police Facts Sheet, on 7 and 8 July 2004, the applicant was staying with his First Partner. They had numerous conversations about their relationship and a verbal argument ensued. The applicant then indicated he would stay with his mother, so they drove in the car with all three children and dropped one child (aged around 5) at a party en route. At one point, while the First Partner was pulling a pram and the applicant was pulling a bag from the car, the First Partner was hit in the face and felt "severe pain" between her eyes. It appears the oldest and youngest child (8 years old and 18 months) were with them. The applicant said that it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it, that he had been pulling on the bag and let it go. She said: "I'm going home to call the police and put a stop to this". While she was still driving, the applicant put the gearstick into "park", upon which the car began to make noises. She braked and pulled over, and told him to get out. He was yelling "take me to mum's" and kicking the inside of the windscreen, causing it to crack. Their 8 year old son started to scream "don't dad, stop dad". They drove back to the First Partner's house and another verbal argument ensued. She said "I'm ringing the police and I can't help it if you go to gaol". She felt a sudden pain on the right side of her head, was crying and told the applicant to get out. He started crying and said "I didn't mean it, this isn't what I wanted, this isn't me". He then left. She then reported the matter to police.
At the time of the assault, an ADVO for the protection of the ex-partner against the applicant was in place, expiring on 20 April 2005. There is no further evidence before the Tribunal about the circumstances in which the ADVO had been made.
When questioned about the events the following day, the applicant admitted to hitting his ex-partner in the face with his right arm whilst trying to pull his bag from the vehicle. He agreed he was very angry at that point in time but said it was an accident.
He admitted to changing gears while the car was moving and kicking the windscreen, saying he was angry. When questioned about assaulting his partner at her home, he said they were having an argument and he lifted his right arm up, telling her to "fuck off". He agreed that his arm came into contact with her face, but could not say how hard the contact was.
The applicant was convicted on 13 January 2005 for assault, as well as property damage, and contravening a restriction specified in an ADVO. He was required to enter a good behaviour bond for 12 months and the ADVO was amended to include a condition that the applicant not enter the premises in which the First Partner resided.
In his submission of 21 April 2020 to the Children's Guardian, the applicant did not address his assault in the home or breaking the windscreen of the car, He stated: "In 2005 I was going through a separation and limited to access to children. We were rekindling and an argument arose I was leaving and tried to get my bag out from underneath the pram in the boot of the car. She (ex partner) was trying to stop me. My bag gave way and as a result I accidentally hit her."
In his statement to the Tribunal dated 27 September 2023, the applicant again did not address his assault in the home. He said that he accidentally elbowed his ex-partner in the head while taking his bag from the pram. He stated that she threatened to report him to police if they did not resume their relationship and he hit the windscreen out of frustration. He said that the car belonged to them both. He said that he regretted reacting to the stress of the moment in a poorly controlled manner. He especially regrets that his children saw him lash out physically, acknowledging it would have been terrifying and traumatising for them.
His statement to the Tribunal used softer language to describe the physical action used to break the windscreen, saying he "hit" rather than "kicked" it. His statement to the Children's Guardian emphasised his own emotional feelings by using the word "rekindling" (of his relationship with his ex-partner). We find this to be a disingenuous statement, made in April 2020, when the applicant knew his First Partner wanted to "move on" and he had already started living with his Second Partner. Under cross-examination in these proceedings, he acknowledged that his First Partner had said to him words to the effect of "Choose me and 3 children, or Child A". Clearly, it was a tumultuous time for a number of parties since the applicant appears to be straddling two relationships, and there were four children's wellbeing and safety to consider.
His statement to the Tribunal that his First Partner threatened to report him to Police if they did not resume their relationship is simply not plausible against the information in the police Facts Sheet that she complained of him constantly harrassing her, and that she wanted to move on.
Under cross-examination, the applicant acknowledged that he lost his temper. His assault on his ex-partner in the home may well have been an instinctive, almost involuntary action. However, we cannot ignore the possibility that he loses control when provoked or angry, without considering the potential physical consequence on another person.
When asked whether he thought his ex-partner may have been frightened of him, the applicant responded, somewhat dismissively, "Ask her". When asked again, whether he was genuinely worried she would be frightened at the time, he deflected the question by stating he was still having contact with their children.

[61]

Third Partner - Negligent Driving/Stalking in November 2016

In 2016, the applicant's Third Partner was 34 weeks pregnant with the applicant's child. They already had two children aged 3 and 2, but were separated and going through family law proceedings. There was ongoing tension between the parties. According to the applicant's statement dated 1 February 2024, the source of that tension can be attributed to his new relationship with another partner (the Fourth Partner) which commenced in around July 2015. At the same time, the applicant appears to have continued seeing his Third Partner who gave birth to their third child in December 2016.
On 12 November 2016, the applicant's Third Partner was driving her vehicle in a northerly direction. As she passed an intersection, the applicant was observed to be driving his vehicle in a southerly direction, towards his ex-partner, and the cars collided. She was fearful for her safety and drove about 80 metres away from the point of impact, and parked her car. The applicant followed her in his car and parked behind her. He then approached the driver's side and attempted to open the door. She dialled Triple Zero and the applicant left the scene and drove to the local police station where he provided his version of events. Police attended the scene of the accident, spoke with the ex-partner, and then arrested the applicant.
The applicant declined to be interviewed. However, whilst in custody, he told police that he had been texting while driving and had the accident. He said he had not known the other driver was his ex-partner.
In his statement dated 27 September 2023, the applicant's evidence was that he accepted that he should not have been texting while driving, and he knew he was at fault. For that reason, he stopped after the collision, approached the vehicle, and the driver's side, and then realised it was his ex-partner driving the vehicle he had hit. He reported the matter to the police, knowing he had been at fault in the collision.
On 5 July 2017, the applicant was convicted of negligent driving and ordered to pay an $800 fine. A charge of stalk/intimidate was withdrawn. The same day, an ADVO was made against the applicant protecting his ex-partner and their children and the duration of the order was 12 months ("First ADVO").

[63]

Third Partner - Multiple contraventions of ADVO - 2018

The First ADVO provided that the applicant must not approach or contact his ex-partner by any means whatsoever except through the applicant's legal representative or a current parenting order under the Family Law Act 1975.
According to the police Facts Sheet, the applicant's Third Partner had left her Facebook account open for the applicant to have contact with their children. He used that platform on a regular basis to keep in touch and arrange times for contact.
From 28 January 2018 through to 9 February 2018, the applicant started to repeatedly call and text his ex-partner in breach of the ADVO. He also messaged her through Facebook, asking for the car. She informed him that she needed the car to collect the children from school and pre-school every day. He again requested the car and informed his ex-partner that he was going to come over and get it. Fearing for her safety, she contacted police who took photographs of text messages on her phone. On 16 February 2018, the ex-partner again contacted police, reporting that the applicant had sent 27 texts from 9 to 16 February 2018. The texts concerned the applicant's request for the vehicle to be returned to him, and his ex-partner's attempts to arrange school payments for the children.
On 2 March 2018, police attended the applicant's residence and noted that he smelt of intoxicating liquor. The applicant said he had been drinking but was not drunk. When offered the opportunity to be interviewed, he reportedly said: "I done nothing wrong. I contacted her in relation to my car … which I needed to drive my kids. What ever is easier, it will make no difference because you will charge me anyway."
The matter was listed before the Local Court on 19 March 2018. The applicant was charged with "Contravene prohibition or restriction in an apprehended domestic violence order" in breach of s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
On 16 June 2018, the applicant was again charged with breaching the ADVO, after sending Facebook messages to his ex-partner regarding evidence she had filed in court. The applicant's messages were somewhat unintelligible but one of the messages appeared to call her a "cunt". Another referred to the following day when the parties were to meet to have a changeover of the children.
The ex-partner did not reply to the applicant's messages but was fearful of the applicant after receiving his messages, and reported them to Police.
The police attended the applicant's residence where he was arrested and cautioned. He said "I only sent her a text message, there was no threat". He said that he had sent the messages after receiving documentation from the Family Law Court that day.
In a letter to the Court dated 27 June 2018 to the Magistrate, the applicant admitted to sending the text message on 16 June 2018, but blamed the texts on "allegations" and "lies" contained in the family law document. He also stated: "In my opinion I was not going to do this and that's it. In my mind there would be no communication and [the victim] would not say a word".
The applicant was convicted on 27 June 2018 for contravening the First ADVO on 2 May 2018, between 1 June and 22 June 2018 and on 24 June 2018. He was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for 12 months.
In his submission to the Children's Guardian dated 21 April 2020, the applicant said that because he did not use proper channels for contacting his ex-partner, he breached the ADVO. He also stated: "2017 to 2018 - I have a long battle with the family court and children's mother. We have periods of time where we get on good and than (sic) things blow up. The children are used and I am not allowed to see the. So I send messages and I breach AVO. I have also asked for property back and that constituted a breach of AVO."
The applicant's email dated 4 May 2022 to the Children's Guardian suggests he has moderated his approach and in future he will follow Family Court Orders, engage a solicitor and follow Family Court proceedings. He also stated that he would engage in counselling to address loss and grief from relationship breakdowns.

[65]

Third Partner - Contravention of Second ADVO - Charged on January 2020

On 29 June 2018, an order varying the First ADVO was varied, protecting the applicant's Third Partner and her three children from the applicant, and was to be in force for two years ("Second ADVO"). The Second ADVO provided that the applicant must not approach the protected persons for at least 12 hours after drinking alcohol, and any contact was required to be through a lawyer or as agreed in writing between the parents about contact with the children.
According to the Police Facts Sheet, the applicant's ex-partner attended her local police station on 17 January 2020 to report ongoing breaches of the Second ADVO during November and December 2019. She asserted that the applicant was sending messages to her continually and showed hundreds of messages on her Facebook Messenger. The messages concerned their children, as well as attempts on the applicant's part to rekindle their relationship. These approaches were rejected.
On 29 January 2020, the applicant attended the police station to hand himself in. The Facts Sheet recorded that he appeared remorseful about the text messages and told police he was just trying to be a good father. He also said that he thought his ex-partner was trying to "set him up" by texting that she may move closer to the applicant.
The applicant pleaded guilty to contravening the Second ADVO. In sentencing, the Magistrate noted the distress suffered by his ex-partner because of the volume of messages he had left for her: "In relation to the defendant he, despite the limitation on contact, has continued to breach the AVO by contacting the victim by sending her hundreds of messages via Facebook Messenger I note that the messages range from talking about the children to attempts to rekindle their relationship. I accept that the volume of the messages would have caused a great deal of distress and concern for the victim. It is important that [the defendant] understands that it takes two people to want to be in a relationship and you cannot through sheer voice of will force yourself on another person, no matter how difficult it is when relationships break down."
His Honour recognised the need to promote the applicant's rehabilitation, making the following additional comments: "In relation to the defendant it would appear, based on the facts before me, that he is having some difficulty in accepting the breakdown of the relationship and, in my view, it would be in his interests and certainly in the interests of his family and former partner and, indeed, in the interests of all of the community, that there be an ongoing period of support and supervision to ensure the defendant addresses the underlying factors which have contributed to his offending behaviour."
His Honour found the offence to be serious. The applicant was convicted. Instead of having a period of imprisonment imposed, he was required to enter into a Community Corrections Order for 18 months, and was fined $1000.00.
Under cross-examination in these proceedings, the applicant conceded that sending multiple messages to both his Third and Fourth ex-partners may have been threatening to them. However, his answer was qualified. Whilst he acknowledged that sending the messages was the wrong thing to do, and he had pleaded guilty, he argued there were both parties involved. He thought he had been treated unfairly and should have contested the matters.

[67]

Fourth Partner - Contraventions of ADVOs - 2017 and 2018

The applicant's relationship with his Fourth Partner appears to have commenced in or around July 2015 and ended in around January 2017.
On 28 April 2017, an ADVO was granted to protect her from the applicant. An amendment to the ADVO on 23 June 2017 prohibited the applicant from contacting her.
The applicant had created a number of different Facebook profiles using different names which he used to contact his ex-partner, including at her place of employment. She reported that on one particular day he contacted her 142 times. She had told him that she no longer wanted contact, but it had continued.
On 29 May 2018, the Fourth Partner attended the police station in a distressed state and pleaded for police to assist her. The police record noted the following: "She appeared to be very upset as she was talking fast; breathing heavily and her eyes were watery. [The victim] said, "I cannot handle this any-more. He is making my life miserable. He has posted another naked photo of me, without my permission, and sent it to my work and everywhere else. He wrote my name [her name] above my nude photo, including my role … and the name of the school that I have been working at for the past 12 years…" "He has defamed me, embarrassed me, and I am unable to function any more. I am unable to leave my house and I am extremely stressed-out…"
According to the police notes, the victim said "He has no regard for the Law or the AVO conditions. He just laughs about it and says, 'police can't do anything, because they can't prove its me.' "
According to the Police Facts Sheet, when the victim attended her local police station on 21 June 2018, constant Facebook Messenger messages were received by her from the applicant. The police made the following observation about the volume of messages sent by the applicant: "The messages sent by the accused, whilst not threatening, appear to be continuous and at (sic) attempt to get the victim to speak with him and ultimately rekindle the relationship. When the victims does (sic) not respond to the accused's messages, by the responses he appears to become irate."
Police also noted that the victim made it clear she did not want the relationship to be continued: "The victim is clearly upset and distressed by the constant contact and indicates she just wanted it to stop. The victim has responded to some of the copious messages sent by the accused telling him to LEAVE HER ALONE."
The applicant was charged with breaching the ADVO by way of phone contact on 30 November 2017 and 1 December 2017, 2 May 2018, 1 to 22 June 2018 and 24 June 2018.
The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of breaching the order and was convicted on 28 June 2018.
In his letter to the Court dated 27 June 2018 (separate from his letter to the Court on the same date regarding his Third Partner), the applicant acknowledged that he and the victim (his Fourth Partner) had created a number of Facebook profiles to communicate with each other. The applicant claimed that he and his Fourth Partner had many conversations and exchanged photos. He had tried to repair the relationship because the parties were having a baby together but a miscarriage occurred at 8 weeks gestation in November 2018 (we presume this was meant to refer to "November 2017").
The applicant also stated in his letter to the Court that his Third and Fourth Partners "targeted" him by making allegations against him which he defended. The substance of the allegations against the applicant is not entirely clear from his letter to the Court and they appear to have little relevance. In any event, the applicant told the Court he had behaved like an "immature teenager". He stated that he regretted his actions and had deleted accounts and all contacts.

[69]

Second Partner (Wife) - Assault - Charged 27 August 2022

A police Facts Sheet sets out the events that culminated in the applicant being charged with assaulting his wife on 27 August 2022. The Facts Sheet relied upon information provided by the applicant's wife, since the applicant had been drinking heavily and had no memory of what he had done until he was arrested and charged.
Extracting from the Facts Sheet, the following is an account of the assault : "On the 27th August 2022 the Victim and Accused were at their home at [deleted to comply with the Tribunal's non-publication order]. The Accused had consumed a number of beers throughout the afternoon and about 5:45pm was building a fire in the backyard with some cardboard. The Victim requested the Accused remove their dogs beds from the clothesline to prevent them smelling of smoke. This has caused an argument between the two, during which several past issues were raised resulting in the argument becoming quite heated. The Victim walked to their bedroom and began trying to pack some clothes to leave. The Accused followed her into the room and attempted to take the clothing off her, stating he was going to burn them. The two have began wrestling over the clothing. The Victim has fallen onto the bed with the Accused falling on top of her. The Accused has began to scratch at the left eye of the Victim, in a gouging motion. The (sic) caused redness and slight swelling to the Victim's eye. The Accused has gotten off the Victim and left the room. The Victim attempted to leave the home through the front door but was stopped by the Accused. Another small wrestle has ensued before the Victim returned to the bedroom to continue packing clothes. The Accused has again entered the bedroom and stood on top of the bed. At this point the Accused was standing between a window and the bed when the accused has kicked her a number of times in her left shoulder and head area. This caused pain a small lump behind the Vitim's left ear. The Victim believes whilst attempting to defend herself from the kicks, her left thumb has bent backwards resulting in swelling and bruising. The Accused left the room again and the Victim fled the location with only her handbag and no other possessions. The Victim ran to a work colleagues (sic) home nearby and stayed the night."
The applicant's wife attended the local Police station to report the assault. She gave permission for police to take photographs of her injuries, and provided a Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief recording. During her interview, she acknowledged she had pushed the applicant and said: "I did want to punch the piss out of him" but said "I was frightened. I couldn't … Yeah, 'cause I knew that if I did that then it'd be worse and I wouldn't know what he would've done to me". When asked if she had fears for her safety, she said "I think if I would've stayed there, he would have done more damage".
When asked whether the applicant had ever threatened, stalked or intimidated her before, she answered "Yes".
Around 3 months after the incident, the applicant attended a conference with the Department of Corrective Services. A case note dated 9 December 2022 recorded the applicant's acknowledgment that aggression is a problem for him. He also stated he had had an alcohol problem in the past and had been binge drinking during the preceding 12 months due to triggers at work. He acknowledged that he had been charged with drink driving on 2 October 2022.
The applicant's account of the event is scant. In his submission to the Children's Guardian dated 20 February 2023, he stated: "In August 2022, I had a breakdown and do not recall the events of that evening. However, there were signs I was struggling with work, personal issues and access to children. I was charged and I immediately engage (sic) with a psychologist".
In his First Statement of 27 September 2023 in these proceedings, the applicant said: "In August 2022, I was still working as a Redress Counsellor with [deleted, due to non-publication order]. My role was to investigate, counsel and prepare documents and statements for people who had been sexually abused in institutions whilst under care of a church. These were historical sexual abuse cases. I had over 40 clients and was working with both males and females throughout NSW over an 8 month period. Looking back, I was suffering from burnout and vicarious trauma. The life events I was learning from my clients were very serious and traumatic. Dealing with these events weighted heavily on me and affected my own mental health. On the day of the incident in August 2022, I was drinking a lot. I was doing so as a form of self-medication to block the events that had been described to me. On the day of the incident, I started an argument with [my wife] and she began packing her belongings with the intent of leaving. While attempting to prevent her departure, I caused physical harm to [my wife]. I entered a guilty plea. I know that the vicarious trauma, burnout, stress I was suffering is no excuse for my drinking and conduct. I regret so much ever harming [my wife]. I have since attended counselling for help."
In his oral evidence before this Tribunal, the applicant said that he had told MC (his Treating psychologist) that he did not believe his wife's account. When asked about which parts of his wife's account were not true, he said that he didn't recall the incident but he doesn't eye gouge or kick. He didn't remember if he had experienced a blackout. He remembered drinking, getting another carton, and an argument over the dogs' beds on the line, but he had no memory of following his wife into their bedroom.
When asked under cross-examination whether he becomes violent when drinking, he stated that the incident was a "one-off", that he had been working as a Redress Counsellor and had been diagnosed with PTSD. He said that his alcohol intake had increased as a result of listening to his clients' accounts of the abuse they had suffered. He used alcohol to sleep and then used it to forget his own painful memories of being abused as a child.
The applicant was convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 18 months which concluded on 24 May 2024. An ADVO was made against the applicant for the protection of his wife, expiring on 20 November 2024.

[76]

Second partner - April 2020

The applicant's Second Partner (and wife) sought an ADVO against the applicant on 3 April 2020.
It appears that on the previous day the applicant had consumed several beers and attempted to become intimate with his wife. She refused and he became verbally and emotionally abusive, degrading her body in comparison to his ex-partners. She locked herself in the master bedroom and went to sleep. The following day, after some bickering, the victim noticed her Facebook status had been updated by someone other than herself, with a photo of her exposed breasts. She asked the applicant why he had posted her breasts on Facebook and he said: "You stated your ex's are better than me". When the victim said she was going to report him to the police, he responded; "It's gone, I've deleted it". The victim took a screenshot of the post before it was deleted and attended the police station. She said she was embarrassed that the applicant had posted her naked breasts on social media, for her friends and family to see.
The applicant was charged with "intentionally distribute intimate image without consent" pursuant to s 91Q(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The matter was listed for hearing on 4 June 2020. A note from the Department of Corrective Services on 9 April 2020 recorded that the applicant appeared to minimise the seriousness of the incident. He reported that he was not drinking in the lead up to the offence which is inconsistent with the victim's report to Police that he had consumed several beers.
Although the applicant initially admitted to the offending conduct (according to his wife's statement to Police), the charge was withdrawn, and the applicant denies the allegation.
In his statement dated 1 February 2024 to the Tribunal, the applicant said that he sent intimate photos of himself and his wife to her after they had an argument. He said he did that in the context of an intimate relationship and he was trying to make up with her. He stated that it was done privately and that he has never posted inappropriate images of his wife publicly.

[91]

Whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child: s 30(1)(f)

With respect to the Trigger Offence, the applicant knew the child was 3 years old, and understood he was the biological father. At the age of 3, the child was significantly vulnerable to harm. When left in the care of the applicant, the child was completely dependent upon the applicant for his safety and welfare. The applicant knew that the child was also physically vulnerable, having been diagnosed with macrocephaly (a larger-sized head), and so he wore a head guard as protective equipment when play wrestling.
With respect to the applicant's history of domestic and family violence, the applicant's intimate partners were all adults at the time of his offending conduct. Because the assaults and contraventions of AVOs were suffered in the context of domestic arrangements with the applicant, and the children's welfare and safety were at stake, each of the partners were vulnerable relevant to the applicant.
The applicant's Third Partner was particularly vulnerable due to her late stage of pregnancy with their third child when he repeatedly breached ADVOs which we acknowledge generally concerned custody and access issues regarding their children.
The applicant had lived with his three children with his First Partner for several years and knew their ages (around 8 and 5 years and an infant aged around 6 months) at the time he assaulted her in July 2004. Likewise, he knew the ages of his children (around 3 and 2 years of age) with his heavily pregnant Third Partner. The applicant knew the age of his Fourth Partner's child (aged around 6 years of age at the relevant time). The children were all vulnerable because of their age and having regard to their status as children of single parents for varying periods of time in their lives.
It is well recognised that children who experience family violence within their family unit are negatively affected even when it is not directed at them. Any child who witnessed the applicant's violent and abusive behaviour would likely be at risk of suffering emotional and psychological harm.
It was pointed out in submissions for the respondent that Judge Betts noted in Dennett & Santis [2021] FCCA 1584 at [103]-[104] the following: "The impact of family violence on children has not always been fully appreciated, and there is always a risk that courts and other well-intentioned professionals take the view that, if the cild was not directly exposed to family violence, or did not otherwise directly witness family violence, that maybe the child has not suffered any harm. This is a view which is, with respect, overly simplistic. Children experience harm as a result of living in a household with a parent who is fearful of the other parent, and having to transition to that other parent, in circumstances where the victim parent is living in fear The impact on a child of this sort of lifestyle is hard to fathom, and may only become apparent with the fullness of time."
In giving her oral evidence, Ms Kirk confirmed that children are psychologically affected by the manner in which parents communicate with each other, and they pick up on things not meant to be contentious such as "niggling" comments. Ms Kirk said that in an environment of family violence, it can be quite threatening to victims to be contacted by a perpetrator.
The applicant's written statements attest to his experience in counselling and supporting vulnerable persons in his many roles. He states that he has studied and understands intergenerational trauma. There is thus no doubt that he would have been aware of the vulnerability of his partners and the children involved.

[93]

The likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition: s 30(1)(i)

In Ms Kirk's opinion, a person is at risk of repeating their behaviour if they have not accepted responsibility, and taking responsibility involves more than a person acknowledging they have broken the law.
It is clear that the applicant has suffered emotional and psychological distress associated with two significant events, the death of Child A and his assault upon his wife in 2022. We acknowledge that the trauma and grief that the applicant has suffered are likely to be protective factors against the applicant repeating any past behaviours.
However, we note as a matter of concern, the applicant's statements that seek to minimise his conduct regarding Child A. Those statements demonstrate he has limited insight into his conduct and has not accepted responsibility for what occurred. Having regard to his stated aspiration to do social work where assessing risks to children may well form part of his duties, we have some degree of reservation about whether he will recognise and respond appropriately to situations where children require medical attention.
With respect to the assault in August 2022, the applicant's assertion that he has no recollection of what he did, may be seen as an attempt to absolve himself from responsibility. Further, despite pleading guilty, his oral evidence that he does not trust his wife (suggesting he does not believe her allegations about what he did), could be seen as an attempt to not accept responsibility for his actions. If he repeated that conduct where children were present, the risk of emotional and psychological harm to them would be significant.
In answering questions about taking responsibility for his persistent breaches of ADVOs concerning his Third and Fourth Partners, the applicant defended his actions, saying the text messages demonstrate they involved 2-way conversations. When asked if he thought there was anything wrong with his conduct if there had been no court orders in place, he answered "No, not really". When asked whether he thought he had been treated unfairly, he answered: "I should have contested". This is clearly a matter of concern since it demonstrates the applicant has not accepted responsibility. He is therefore at risk of repeating his behaviours.

[94]

The Kirk Report

The expert opinion, as expressed in the Kirk Report, that the applicant is "no longer (our emphasis) a threat to any child in his care" does not greatly assist in our evaluation of the applicant's risk to the safety of children. It is not clear whether Ms Kirk thought that the applicant, at some earlier stage in his life, may have posed a risk to the safety of children. The report does not specify the facts or assumptions of fact relevant to the issue of risk to the safety of children, on which the opinion is based.
Ms Kirk's report defended the applicant's involvement regarding Child A by stating "During the death of the child, [the applicant] did not witness the incident that affected the child and could only respond to what he could physically see",
The report does not acknowledge the Coroner's critical finding that the applicant abused Child A. Ms Kirk did not know that the child had been taken into care by DOCS. Under cross-examination, Ms Kirk acknowledged that she had only looked at the evidence concerning the death of the Child A in the days prior to the hearing.
When it was put to her that the applicant's description of the event was not consistent with the Coroner's finding, she acknowledged that would affect her risk assessment and she would want to know what happened in order to weigh the matter.
Under cross-examination, Ms Kirk said there is now understanding of how the brain works, and there is a difference between the decision-making capacity in a 20 year old compared with a 46 year old. Yet, in this case, we make the observation that the applicant's conduct when in his early to mid-40s (with respect to the assault in 2022) appears to be similar to his conduct at the age of 19 (assault of his de facto mother in law) and 27 (assault of his First Partner and contravention of ADVO).
We note the report does not make reference to the repeated episodes of domestic violence where children were present, or likely to have been present, yet contains the following generalised statement: "After every situation that has occurred, [the applicant] has sought help to rectify the situation and attempt as best he is able to ensure he does not behave this way again."
The repeated episodes of domestic violence with the applicant's various partners and repeated breaches of AVOs contradict this stated reasoning.
Ms Kirk's statement that the applicant "gives back to his community continually" has relevance with respect to the issue of public interest, but it does not address the fundamental issue of risk.
Reasoning that the applicant has lost a great deal, which exacerbates his trauma and grief, and therefore he should not today be considered a risk to children, is flawed. The legislation is protective towards children, and not punitive towards applicants.

[95]

Applicant's mental health and relationship with alcohol

The available psychiatric and psychological reports identify the applicant's relationship with alcohol, loss of control and anger management issues, and his PTSD diagnosis.
More than two years before the assault offence in 2022, a Clinical Psychologist (GO) treated the applicant for management of his emotions, anxiety and irritability. The evidence was inconsistent as to whether alcohol was a factor in connection with the allegations that the applicant had posted a photograph of his wife's naked breasts on Facebook in 2020.
After the 2022 assault, his GP diagnosed PTSD and Alcohol Misuse. He treated the applicant with an antidepressant and referred him for psychotherapy as well as Drug and Alcohol counselling.
A Consultant Psychiatrist (HR) diagnosed him with alcohol dependence, PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, and treated him with Fluoxetine (antidepressant) and Naltrexone (anti-craving medication). There is no evidence in the material before us that confirms whether the applicant is still reliant upon taking medication to control his cravings for alcohol.
A Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist (Dr ZZ) diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD, and concluded that he met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder.
MC's letter of support of 6 September 2023 puts the applicant's problematic use of alcohol in the past yet acknowledges that he manages his cravings "appropriately". MC's opinion that the applicant does not meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder is at odds with the opinion of two psychiatrists and the applicant's GP.
Community mental health reports noted the applicant to be unpredictable, impulsive and violent, and the overall clinical impression was that the applicant suffered "aggression and anger when under the influence of alcohol leading to impulsivity and disinhibition in relationships".
MC's notes referred to "predisposing factors" being the sexual abuse of the applicant as a child and cultural confusion. The notes referred to "perpetuating factors", being "unresolved trauma" and "unresolved anger". The applicant's written evidence was that he was re-traumatised when receiving training on the Stolen Generations. Reports from the community mental health service refer to the applicant's apparent attempt to hang himself two days after the assault offence in 2022. We see this as an indication of the intensity of his mental health crisis at that time.
Many of the reports do not precisely identify the period or periods in the applicant's life in which alcohol may have been prevalent or the cause of his offending behaviours. MC's notes recorded the applicant's use of alcohol "for years" and consistently referred to relapse prevention strategies. According to a community mental health report dated 7 October 2022, the applicant recognised the importance of not having alcohol nearby and the influence it had had on events in his life "over the years". A DCS report recorded the applicant's acknowledgment that he had had an alcohol problem "in the past". Overall, we are left with the impression that the applicant's problem with alcohol misuse was not confined to the period of months leading to the 2022 assault.
Against that, the applicant's oral evidence was that he does not have a problem with alcohol. His explanation for the 2022 assault was that he had PTSD and was suffering burnout and vicarious trauma such that he was drinking heavily as a form of self-medication leading to the events on 27 August 2022.
When questioned about drinking for several days in a week in April 2023, the applicant responded, somewhat dismissively, that it was "not illegal", and again stated "I don't have a drinking problem". When it was suggested to him that it was possible he might catch up with mates and have a drink in the next two months, the applicant said that would not happen because he was back playing footy, surfing, seeing his nieces and doing "cultural stuff".
In his written statement, the applicant said that he has gone to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, stopped drinking and gone to counselling. There is very little evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has engaged in counselling to reflect specifically on the contribution that his conduct may have had on the dynamics of his relationships over the years which resulted in his convictions for assault and contravention of ADVOs. Moreover, his oral evidence was that he no longer feels the need to see MC other than on an 'as needs' basis.
Ms Kirk agreed that it was important for the applicant to have trust in order to receive support. His oral evidence was that he does not trust anyone, including his wife and his referees. He did acknowledge that he trusts MC and an Aboriginal elder with whom he practises mindfulness while "on country".
It is clear that the applicant believes in the value of engaging in "men's business" and uses a cultural model, on his own, for spiritual healing. Under cross-examination he repeatedly stated that he was "grounded", through his surfing, swimming and diving. When asked whether he could be confident he would not be triggered if he worked in an organisation that was flawed, the applicant became visibly irritated, answering: "you didn't hear me". He again said that he was "grounded" and was not culturally conflicted.
We note that the applicant's belief that he was "grounded" (as stated in his submission to the Children's Guardian on 21 April 2020) did not prevent the assault upon his wife in August 2022.
There is no objective independent evidence before the Tribunal, for example by way of reference from the Aboriginal Elder with whom the applicant goes "on country", to support the applicant's assertion that he is "grounded".
Other than going "on country" and seeing MC on an "as needs" basis, there is no evidence that the applicant has put mitigation strategies in place to ensure his conduct is not repeated.
In all the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the applicant has accepted responsibility for his conduct because he fails to show insight into the effect of his conduct upon others. He does not impress us as a person who genuinely believes in, and is committed to, ongoing reflection of his behaviours to bring about lasting change. He continues to be defensive, and deflect blame onto other parties. He presents as someone who will be resistant to ongoing psychological counselling unless he is required to demonstrate rehabilitation for the purpose of impending court proceedings.
On the evidence, we cannot be satisfied at this point in time, that he will not repeat his offending conduct.

[97]

Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application: s 30(1)(j)

The key arguments made on behalf of the applicant are set out earlier in these Reasons.
It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that his risk should be assessed by reference to the conduct of previous applicants, such as the applicant in Children's Guardian v BQJ [2016] NSWSC 869 ('BQJ'). In that case, the Tribunal gave clearance to an applicant who had been found guilty of manslaughter of a 5 year old boy. The Tribunal took into account that the applicant was himself a juvenile (aged 14 years) when he committed the crime, the offence had occurred more than 30 years ago, the applicant's total criminal record demonstrated exemplary conduct (apart from matters considered by the Supreme Court to be minor), and it was considered highly unlikely that the applicant would repeat the original offence.
The Tribunal determines each case on its merits. We distinguish BQJ from the case before us, where the applicant was not a juvenile, but a man of 27, when the incidents occurred in 2004. His criminal record in the period from 2017 to 2022 does not demonstrate exemplary conduct, and he was aged 45 at the time that he assaulted his wife in 2022. Ms Kirk, in giving her oral evidence, stated that there is now understanding of how the brain works, and there is a difference between the decision-making capacity in a 20 year old compared with a 46 year old. Even allowing for the vicarious trauma he was suffering at the time that he assaulted his wife, the applicant's behaviour involved aggression that was not dissimilar from the conduct he exhibited as a young man aged 19 and subsequently, as a man aged 27.
The applicant submitted a number of references in support of his application from co-workers and friends.
The reference from LG who supervised the applicant in the delivery of training in the Certificate III in Community Services attests to the applicant's ability to engage with students effectively and advise them about their personal circumstances. In particular, the applicant was observed, by his words and body language, to make single mothers who had been victims of domestic violence feel safe. No complaints were received about the applicant's conduct and LG did not see the applicant behave inappropriately. LG's knowledge of the applicant's criminal history appears to be limited and at a superficial level, as reflected in his statement that the applicant was "upfront with his domestic situation and the court matters". A small amount of weight has been given to this professional reference in the applicant's favour.
Another reference, provided by one of the students taught by the applicant, attested to his effectiveness as a teacher and his volunteer life-saving efforts. NM has known the applicant for around 24 years and said she did not see him behave in any way that was inappropriate or that suggested he would be unsafe to be around children. This reference makes no mention of the applicant's criminal history and is afforded only a very small amount of weight.
A statement of support dated 26 September 2023 was provided by NC who first met the applicant about 15 years ago and worked with him in 2010 for an Aboriginal youth association, providing youth programs to the community. In a further statement dated 7 February 2024, NC said that he had been shown a copy of the applicant's criminal history.
The applicant lived with NC and his two children who were under 18 at the time, from around January 2015 to early 2017. NC attested to the applicant's popularity with the children. He was observed to be caring and responsible, taking children to the community centre and supporting them in their homework activities. NC and the applicant both worked as volunteers at a local surfing program during the school holidays and the applicant was observed to engage well with the children. NC stated that he never heard any complaint about the applicant's conduct with children.
NC attested to the applicant's delivery of seminars/programs on Aboriginal cultural awareness to adults, which included topics such as racism and the history of oppression of Aboriginal people. In his opinion, the applicant delivered these programs in a way that was inoffensive despite their difficult and controversial subject matter.
NC also attended the hearing to give evidence and be cross-examined. With respect to the death of Child A, he said that the applicant had told him there had been a head injury accident and that he didn't do it. Otherwise, NC acknowledged he had not read the Coroner's report. When it was put to him that the Coroner had found the applicant abused the child, NC conceded that he found it "pretty unnerving" and that he would have wanted to know. This information affected his opinion of the applicant. On balance, we have given a small amount of weight to NC's evidence in the applicant's favour.
EW provided a statement dated 7 September 2024, attesting to the applicant's support given to four of her children engaged in the Aboriginal youth association programs. In particular, EW attested to the applicant mentoring them in "men's business" as part of their Aboriginal culture.
EW attended to give evidence and be cross-examined. EW stated that her children loved the applicant and she trusted him. EW conceded that she did not know the full detail surrounding the death of Child A. She did not know that the child had been taken into care and did not know the Coroner's finding. Her reaction to this information was one of shock, and she said that she would have liked to have known. EW maintained her view that the applicant was gentle, kind and professional but conceded that her children were never alone with him, and there were always other Aboriginal gentlemen present in the "men's business" programs. On balance, we have given a small amount of weight to EW's evidence.
A letter of support dated 25 September 2023 was provided by EM who has known the applicant for 22 years. EM attested to the applicant's love for his family and community, as evidenced by his community-based work. The letter of support alludes to the applicant's more recent conviction for assault whilst he was "under the influence of alcohol", but makes no other reference to the applicant's criminal record. EM was called to attend and give evidence, but declined to attend. On balance, we have given the same amount of weight to this reference as we have given to the evidence of LG.
The applicant's wife attended to give evidence and be cross-examined. Her testimony was overwhelmingly supportive to the applicant. She regarded the assault upon her as an isolated incident and said that the applicant in that particular circumstance was not the person she knew. Her evidence was that the applicant is now more patient whereas, previously, he had been argumentative. The credibility of her evidence is diminished because of the nature of her relationship with the applicant and a concern that she has a vested interest in the determination of this application impacting upon his earning capacity. We have accordingly heavily discounted the weight to be given to her evidence as a result.

[100]

Overall evaluation of risk

In determining whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, we have considered the seriousness of his relevant criminal record and conduct, and the period of time that has elapsed.
We do not accept the submission that, putting the breaches of ADVOs aside, the applicant's pattern of domestic and family violence comprises an assault in 1996, an assault 8 years later and an assault almost 20 years later, with text message incidents which do not rise to the same level of violence.
In our view, the offences and conduct of the applicant that caused a refusal of his clearance application fall roughly into two time periods.
First, the events surrounding the death of Child A occurred almost 20 years ago and the applicant is clearly deeply saddened by the death of his son and said he would do things differently today. The applicant's conviction for assault of his First Partner also occurred almost 20 years ago and therefore the elapsed time is relevant subject to being satisfied that the applicant has insight into his conduct and can demonstrate his rehabilitation.
There is then a period of time between 2005 and 2017 during which the applicant's criminal record does not cause concern for the purpose of assessing his risk.
However, more recently, in the period from late 2017 to late 2022, the applicant's criminal record demonstrates persistent volatility and aggression, with repeated instances of domestic and family violence towards three intimate partners.
The applicant's last domestic violence offence, being the assault of his wife in August 2022, occurred less than 18 months before these proceedings were heard, with a Community Corrections Order still current at the time of hearing and an ADVO against the applicant expiring on 20 November 2024.
The applicant's involvement in the events surrounding the death of Child A and his conviction under s 228 of the Care Act are very serious matters. The applicant's many statements, some quite recent, seeking to minimise his conduct cause concern. They demonstrate he has not fully reflected upon the events and has not accepted responsibility for them. We conclude that he has limited insight into his conduct. These matters outweigh the amount of time that has elapsed.
Kicking in the car windscreen in the presence of his children in 2004 is seriously aggressive behaviour, demonstrating loss of control and anger. The applicant has not fully addressed the assault of his wife in the home and we conclude that he does not have sufficient insight into the effect of his conduct and the harm it could have upon children. These matters also outweigh the period of time that has elapsed.
The applicant's persistent breaches of ADVOs are equally serious matters and relatively recent. His behaviours concerning his Third and Fourth Partners were obsessive and intimidating. His statements that purport to acknowledge breaches as technical matters whilst continuing to blame his ex-partners demonstrate a failure to accept responsibility, lack of insight into his behaviours and a failure to understand the impact of coercive control upon a victim. On the evidence before us, there has been no meaningful reflection except an acknowledgment that he had breached ADVOs. Pleading guilty is not the same as reflecting upon behaviour and taking responsibility for error. Ms Kirk agreed that acknowledging breaking the law is not the same as taking responsibility.
The applicant's assault upon his wife in August 2022 is very recent and was a serious criminal offence. We do not doubt his remorse over the incident. However, we are not satisfied that he has accepted responsibility for his actions despite pleading guilty. Further, there has not been a sufficiently long period of time since the assault upon his wife, to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant has reflected upon his behaviour and put strategies in place to ensure he will not repeat the conduct.
We do not doubt the applicant's sincerity in his desire to abstain from alcohol, regulate his emotions and refrain from violent behaviours. His emphatic oral evidence is that he does not have a drinking problem. However, this is outweighed by the mental health assessments, and psychological and psychiatric reports which focus on his use of alcohol and dependency for which he has been medicated.
We are not satisfied that the applicant has mobilised his intentions to rehabilitate, into a sustainable plan. He has weaned himself off regular counselling, moving towards self-regulation. We are not satisfied that he has put sufficient protective strategies in place to effectively mitigate against the possibility of repeat behavioural lapses.
In our view, the risk of the applicant suffering vicarious trauma again if he has not rehabilitated, or rehabilitated fully, is a matter of concern. The applicant's oral evidence is that he simply would not be triggered because he is "grounded". Apart from the applicant's subjective statements that he is "grounded" by going "on country" with an Elder member of the Aboriginal community, there is no objective evidence before us of that strategy or its effectiveness to allay our concern.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (104 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cases Cited (23)