GVG v Children's Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 24;

1. The Applicant works as a pest controller and at times is required to attend childcare centres and schools to undertake pest control. In those circumstances, the Applicant's employer has required him to obtain a clearance.
2. The Applicant also seeks to join the State Emergency Service and states that he requires a clearance for this volunteer work.
3. In 2015, the Applicant's clearance was cancelled by the Respondent due to child related criminal charges involving one of his children. The Applicant did not seek a review of this decision.
4. On 2 March 2021, after the five-year statutory bar expired, the Applicant applied to the Respondent for a clearance. As the Applicant had a police record, a risk assessment was required.
5. On 27 November 2024, the Respondent refused to grant the Applicant a clearance. The Respondent concluded that the Applicant was a risk to the safety of children due to the Applicant's long history of perpetrating domestic and family violence between 2000 and 2022.
6. On 24 December 2024, the Applicant filed an administrative review application with the Tribunal, seeking a review of the Respondent's decision.

1. The issues arising from the application, and the answers to those issues, are:

(1) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this application? - Yes.

(2) Does the Applicant pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children? - Yes.

(3) If not:

(a) Would a reasonable person allow his or her child to have direct contact with the Applicant that was not directly supervised by another person while the Applicant was engaged in any child-related work (reasonable person test)? - Not necessary to decide given the answer to Issue 2.

(b) Is it in the public interest for the Applicant to have a clearance (public interest test)? - Not necessary to decide given the answer to Issue 2.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this application?

1. Since these proceedings commenced, the WWC Act has been amended by the Child Protection (Working with Children) and other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW) (Amendment Act). The Amendment Act removed the provisions entitling individuals to apply to the Tribunal for administrative review of the Respondent's decisions in respect of clearances. The relevant sections of the Amendment Act commenced on 23 September 2025.
2. Clause 27(2) of Schedule 3 of the WWC Act states that an application for review made before the date on which the Bill for the Amendment Act was first introduced into Parliament (that is, 5 August 2025) must be determined by the Tribunal as if the Amendment Act had not commenced. In this case the application was made on 24 December 2024. Therefore, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to determine the Applicant's application.
3. The provisions of the WWC Act referred to below are provisions of the WWC Act in force before 23 September 2025.

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

1. A person who has been refused a clearance by the Respondent may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) (WWC Act, s 27(1)).
2. The Tribunal, in reviewing the Respondent's decision, must grant a clearance to a person who is subject to a risk assessment unless satisfied that the person "poses a risk to the safety of children" (WWC Act, s 18(2)). A reference to a "risk to the safety of children" is "a reference to a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children" (WWC Act, s 5B). The Tribunal's approach to risk assessment is protective and not punitive: Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 at [61].
3. In reviewing a decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse a clearance, the Tribunal must consider the following factors (WWC Act, s 30(1)):

(a) the seriousness of any matters that caused the assessment in relation to the person,

(b) the period of time since those matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred,

(c) the age of the person at the time the matters occurred,

(d) the age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time it occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim,

(e) the difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person,

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

(g) the person's present age,

(h) the seriousness of the person's criminal history and the conduct of the person since the matters occurred,

(i) the likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct or of any other matters that caused the assessment and the impact on children of any such repetition,

(i1) any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person,

(j) any information given in, or in relation to, the application,

(j1) any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A,

(k) any other matters that the Children's Guardian considers necessary.

1. The object of the WWC Act is to protect children, firstly, "by not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work", and secondly, "by requiring persons engaged in child-related work" to have clearances (WWC Act, s 3). The "safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration in the operation" of the WWC Act (WWC Act, s 4).
2. In determining an application for administrative review under the ADR Act, the Tribunal is to decide "what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it", including "any relevant factual material" and "any applicable written or unwritten law" (ADR Act, s 63(1)). That issue is to be determined as at the time of the determination, not as at the time the Respondent made its decision: YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 at [25].

2000 - Applicant contravenes ADVO protecting his partner

1. In March 2000, a verbal and physical altercation took place between the Applicant and his partner. At the time they had two young children. During the argument the Applicant pushed his partner on two occasions, causing her to fall each time. The partner suffered bruising and an abrasion to her arm. The Applicant also pushed over furniture in the children's bedroom. This incident led to an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) being made against the Applicant, protecting his partner.
2. In August 2000, the Applicant was fined for contravening the ADVO. The contravention involved the Applicant engaging in a verbal argument with his partner, pushing her with both hands, punching her and pulling her hair. This altercation occurred in the presence of one of their children.
3. In December 2000, the Applicant was convicted of four counts of contravening the ADVO protecting his partner. The Applicant had attended his partner's house on three occasions, during a period of separation, and a verbal argument ensued. A fourth incident involved the Applicant attending his partner's house and taking his mail, without any interaction with his partner.
4. In his statement, the Applicant denies there was any violence between his partner and himself at the time, and they eventually resumed the relationship and went on to have two more children together.
5. During cross-examination, the Applicant said that he had no memory of these incidents. Contrary to what he said in his statement, the Applicant said that he was not denying what was recorded in the police records, but he could not visualise the incidents.

2009 - Applicant assaults partner and is subject to AVO

1. The Applicant and the same partner remained in a relationship until 2009. In June 2009, during a verbal argument between the Applicant and his partner, the Applicant pushed his partner, threw a carton of milk at her which struck her on the head, and threw a container of cold water at her which drenched her. The Applicant also threw a basket of clothes on the floor and threw other items. It was noted in the police record of this incident that the couple's four children were present during the altercation and had been exposed to previous incidents of domestic violence between their parents.
2. This incident led to an AVO against the Applicant, protecting the Applicant's partner, and the Applicant being charged and convicted of common assault.
3. In his statement, the Applicant states that he was carrying clothes around the house because he was cleaning up. The Applicant admits that he poured water over his partner. The Applicant states that he realised that things were "getting out of hand" and he attempted to leave the house with the children.

1. In January 2010, after the Applicant and his parter had separated, the Applicant drove her and their four children to an appointment with a solicitor. After the appointment, the Applicant and his ex-partner had an argument while driving in the car. The Applicant slammed on the brakes with such force that the seatbelt caused pain to the ex-partner. The ex-partner tried to get out of the car, however the Applicant engaged the child lock system. The Applicant then went around to her side of the car, and opened her door. The Applicant was yelling, pulled her by her arm, punched her on the arm several times, grabbed her hair and banged her head against the side of the car several times making her feel dizzy. One of the children escaped from the car during the incident. A passer-by called police. The Applicant drove off with three of the children in the car, leaving the ex-partner in the gutter and the child who had run off. Police observed extensive bruising on the ex-partner's arm. The ex-partner was pregnant at the time.
2. The Applicant was charged and convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravening an AVO.
3. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that he was aware that his ex-partner was pregnant at the time of this incident. The Applicant stated that he was embarrassed about the agreed facts. The Applicant stated that he did not remember trying to stop her from leaving as "I was the one asking her to go to a train station". When he was asked about the degree of force that he had used and whether it was appropriate, the Applicant stated that he should not have done that. When asked about the bruising that his ex-partner suffered, the Applicant stated that she was on a blood thinner at the time and the bruising was "more severe". The Applicant admitted that he was angry and that he pulled her arm.

1. In November 2015, the Applicant's 14-year-old developmentally delayed son and his siblings were at home being noisy. The Applicant became angry, grabbed the son and pushed him up against the bedroom wall. The Applicant then punched the son in the cheek, kicked him in the legs whilst the son hid on the bottom bunk bed. The son fought back. The Applicant then recorded the son on his phone stating that his son was a "good actor" and that "I can show the cops". The Applicant spat on his son.
2. The son then ran to a family member's house which was close by, and police and ambulance were called. The family member later told police that when the Applicant's son arrived at her home, he disclosed that the Applicant had hurt him, pulled his hair and punched him. The family member stated to police that she saw a red mark on the back of the boy's neck.
3. When police met with the Applicant's son at the hospital, police saw that the boy had abrasions and bruising to his neck and shoulder area. Police observed the boy to be very distraught, timid and frightened.
4. A further medical examination confirmed scratches and abrasions to the Applicant's son's neck, back and stomach.
5. The Applicant's son was later interviewed by police and disclosed being physically assaulted by the Applicant. A video recording of this interview was included in the material before the Tribunal.
6. The hospital records note that the Applicant's son disclosed that "about a week ago", the Applicant had "tried to choke me", and that the Applicant had hurt him on other occasions during the past year and previously. The boy said that the Applicant also yells and swears at him.
7. The Applicant was also interviewed by police but, on the advice of his lawyer, did not say anything.
8. The Applicant was convicted of common assault. The court made a 12-month final AVO, protecting his son. The AVO, which had standard conditions, did not prohibit contact between the Applicant and his son.
9. During cross-examination, when asked about this incident, the Applicant stated that he went into the children's bedroom to "deal with the situation" as the boy was his child (and not his partner's child). The Applicant said that as he went to grab his son, the boy kicked him as a means of self-defence. The Applicant said that he gave his son "a little push" which did not result in the boy losing balance, and after that his son went out to the veranda and "disappeared". The Applicant stated that "he heard somewhere along the line" that his son was at hospital and had told hospital staff that "it was more than just a push".
10. The Applicant stated that his son did not return to reside with him and he had not contact with him for two years after this incident. The Applicant stated that their relationship was then repaired after his son apologised for his actions. When asked what he apologised for, the Applicant stated that he did not remember, but "assumed it was from making up stories".
11. When asked about the injuries that his son had at the time, the Applicant stated that they had been going to mixed martial arts two to three times a week, which involved getting his son into "choke holds". The Applicant denied that he had caused any bruising to his son, and that there were other people (at mixed martial arts) who were "bigger and more serious" who would do this.
12. The Applicant relied on video footage of him and his son "sparring and training together", which the Applicant states was recorded before the incident with his son.
13. The Applicant stated that he felt that the family were influencing and coaching his son to make the disclosures that he did at the time. The Applicant stated that the family member who cared for his son following the incident was using his son to "get more money from the government".
14. The Applicant's son, who is now an adult, gave the following evidence during the hearing in support of his father:

(1) The family member (who he had gone to after the incident) was "there and watching" when he told the police and hospital staff that the Applicant had assaulted him.

(2) He was a kid at the time and was influenced into saying that.

(3) He could not remember if the Applicant had lost his temper with the other children. His dad was not threatening.

(4) He did do martial arts - boxing and sparring with other people, and that's where the bruising came from.

1. It was put to the Applicant's son that he wanted to support his father, and felt guilty about the negative effect that the criminal proceedings had had on his father. The Applicant's son denied this proposition.

2017 - Applicant sends inappropriate text messages to his stepson

1. In March 2017, the Applicant's 16-year-old stepson reported to police that the Applicant had sent him abusive text messages. The Applicant's stepson told police that he had had an argument with his mother and the Applicant (who were residing together) about staying out late at night. As a result of the argument, he went and stayed at his father's home. The Applicant's stepson told police that the Applicant "is bi-polar and has other mental health issues which he is currently on medication for." Later that evening, the Applicant sent a series of text messages to his stepson. The police read these messages and noted that they were "largely incomprehensible rambling" however at one stage the Applicant stated that his stepson's sister had slept with her friend's dad. The police concluded that while the messages were inappropriate, there were no threats made and no offence had been committed.
2. During cross-examination, it was put to the Applicant that the fact that his teenage stepdaughter had sex with an adult male may have meant that she was in an abusive relationship. The Applicant stated that he "had not really thought about it that way". The Applicant conceded that he had not really put himself in her shoes.
3. During cross-examination, when it was put to him, the Applicant denied that in the past he had a very volatile relationship with the children (both his own children and his stepchildren). The Applicant stated that he currently has a great relationship with his adult children.

Police/child protection investigation - allegations against Applicant of a sexual nature

1. In December 2019, the Applicant's stepdaughter disclosed during an interview with police and the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) officers that when she was about 10 to 11 years of age, the Applicant "sexually touched" her. The stepdaughter was 14 years of age at the time of the interview. The stepdaughter stated that the Applicant had:

(1) Touched her thigh on one occasion when they were driving in a car, alone together. He would stop when they got out of the car.

(2) While sitting on a lounge when they were home alone together, put her on his lap and touched her on the waist and thigh. She yelled and told him to stop, and stomped on his foot with her foot.

(3) Touched her legs and touched her arms near her breasts.

1. The stepdaughter described the touching as being "like a couple".
2. The stepdaughter also stated that the Applicant would let "his kids" hurt her ("choke me"), and they would not get in trouble for doing this.
3. During the DCJ investigation, DCJ officers spoke to the Applicant's stepdaughter's 19-year-old sister who alleged that the Applicant also sexually toucher her when she had lived in the same household.
4. DCJ did not find allegations of sexual abuse to have been substantiated but found that there was a risk of sexual harm for the Applicant's stepdaughter if she were to reside in the same household as the Applicant. No charges resulted from these allegations due to insufficient evidence. Police did not seek an AVO as the events did not occur recently (it is likely that the events occurred in the Christmas holidays of 2017/2018 when the Applicant was living with his partner and her children), and there were no immediate safety concerns.
5. In his statement, the Applicant stated that his stepdaughter would regularly climb into his and his partner's laps when they were on the lounge or in bed, and they would have to tickle her to get off. The Applicant stated that this continued until she was a "teenager and older". The Applicant recalls that he told his partner that he did not feel comfortable with this as she was not his child.
6. In his statement, the Applicant stated that he remembers driving a manual car with his stepdaughter in the passenger seat once, where she swung her legs onto the centre console of the car, making it difficult for the Applicant to drive and change gears. The Applicant stated that he began to tickle her around the knee, the same as he had "always done" when she sat on his lap to get her off. The Applicant stated that her "most ticklish spot" was "just above the knee on the inside of the leg".
7. The Applicant submitted that his stepdaughter, who is now an adult, should have been called for cross-examination, to allow a "more fulsome assessment and consideration by the Tribunal as to the material issues requiring determination". The Applicant submits that the fact of him wanting to cross-examine her demonstrates an intention and willingness by the Applicant to "face his contradictor (or accuser)" in circumstances where the allegations are gravely serious.
8. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that the older stepdaughter would rub herself on him and he would ask her to stop. The Applicant stated that he felt that she "tried to come onto me" and "I was backing off". The Applicant recalled that this stepdaughter was 14 years of age at the time. The Applicant admitted that on one occasion, he was involved in giving his 14-year-old stepdaughter a bottle of alcohol (a cruiser), because his partner would give her alcohol.

1. In December 2022, the Applicant's partner reported to police that her relationship with the Applicant had deteriorated. The two had recently ended their relationship which was resulting in arguments. The partner went to seek legal advice about a property settlement, and returned home and notified the Applicant that she was not "taking any deals in regard to the property". The Applicant returned to the home to pack his belongings and was making as much noise as possible. Later that day, the partner entered her room and found her bed mattress had been slashed. Fearing for her safety, she reported this to police.
2. The Applicant was charged with "destroy or damage property" and pleaded guilty but sought to be dealt with under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The charge was dismissed by the Local Court under s 14(1)(b) of this Act. This provision allows a Magistrate to dismiss a charge and discharge the defendant on the condition that the defendant attends a place for assessment, treatment or the provision of support for their mental health or cognitive impairment. The Applicant claimed that he was not on medication at the time of the offence. In the transcript of the Court's decision, it was noted that since the offence the Applicant had seen a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist and commenced medication in relation to several diagnosed conditions including bipolar affective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit disorder, and anxiety.
3. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that he was "a little bit stressed", had damaged the mattress with scissors and covered it up. The Applicant said that he could not explain why he did it, apart from being stressed and "took it out on the mattress rather than a person". The Applicant said that his partner had spotted the mattress before he was able to change it.

1. In March 2023, the Applicant was served with an ADVO prohibiting him from residing at the same address as his partner following the incident in December 2022.
2. In December 2023, the police attended his partner's address for an unrelated matter and identified that the Applicant was residing at the address in breach of the ADVO. The Applicant told police that he only resided at the address "sometimes" and believed that he was able to reside there with his partner's permission. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the Local Court, but on appeal to the District Court, the sentence was set aside, and the charge was dismissed (Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10(1)(a)).

1. The Applicant has not filed a current report about the state of his mental health from a suitably qualified expert.
2. The Respondent filed records that had been obtained under summonses from psychologists and counsellors who the Applicant has engaged with at various times since 2018. It is apparent from these records that the Applicant has been diagnosed with mental health conditions including bipolar affective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety.
3. The most recent assessment of the Applicant's mental health was produced under summons from a consultant psychiatrist who the Applicant saw at the end of 2023. This assessment was to determine his fitness to become a member of the Australian Defence Force. The psychiatrist completed a report in December 2023 and noted that the Applicant required ongoing psychiatric and psychological input, although there had been stability in his condition over the past six months. The psychiatrist stated that past issues of recklessness, impulsivity, anger problems, and legal troubles are attributed to his challenging upbringing and mental health conditions.
4. In relation to medication, during cross-examination, the Applicant stated that he had not been on medication in relation to his mental health since the end of 2023.
5. The most recent evidence of counselling was from records produced under summons by a counsellor who the Applicant engaged with between December 2024 and June 2025. The counsellor states that the Applicant commenced counselling to explore the impact of unresolved childhood trauma on his emotional regulation, trust issues and mental health. The counsellor notes that over the counselling sessions, the Applicant made significant progress in emotional regulation and self-care practices. In relation to his mental health, the counsellor noted that the Applicant shows experienced anxiety, panic symptoms, negative thinking loops and difficulties with intimacy, and had made some progress in using suggested techniques.
6. The Applicant also attended sessions of individual and relationship counselling with a separate counsellor between April 2023 and December 2023, and then again between November 2024 and April 2025. In the limited records produced under summons by this counsellor, it is noted that when the Applicant commenced counselling he presented with a range of interrelated personal and relational concerns including unresolved childhood inter-relational and family-of-origin trauma, challenges in maintaining healthy intimate partner relationships, and difficulties with emotional regulation and communication. The counsellor noted that the Applicant had made significant and commendable progress through his counselling journey.

1. The Applicant submits that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Applicant submits that he has not been convicted of a criminal offence since 2016, and the incidents that have followed have not resulted in charges, or findings or fact in relation to the truthfulness of the allegations, or convictions. The Applicant submits that he is no longer living with children, and has engaged strongly on an ongoing basis with medical treatment in relation to his mental health.
2. The Respondent submits that the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal is left with a pattern of the Applicant's behaviour that spans 22 years, and while the Applicant is taking positive steps with counselling, it is yet to be seen if this counselling will be effective. The Respondent submits that there has been a consistent pattern of lashing out physically when he is unable to deescalate, and at times children have been present.

1. In determining whether the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, the Tribunal has considered the mandatory considerations in s 30(1) of the WWC Act.

1. The Tribunal finds that the totality of the Applicant's conduct is very serious. It involves perpetrating domestic violence in intimate relationships including in the presence of young children, physical assault of a child and breaches of AVOs.
2. The allegations of a sexual touching of his stepdaughters were not substantiated by DCJ and did not lead to the police charging the Applicant with an offence or seeking an AVO. However, the Applicant's admitted conduct towards his young stepdaughters, namely tickling on the inner thigh and buying alcohol for a 14-year-old, is inappropriate.
3. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's explanations for the 2015 physical assault of his son or the Applicant's son's recantation of the assault under cross-examination. It was clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant's son was motivated to give evidence because of the impact that this incident had on his father's employment.
4. The Tribunal has given weight to the contemporaneous evidence of the Applicant's son's disclosures which were made soon after the event, and the injuries which were consistent with the Applicant's son's disclosures. The Tribunal finds that it is implausible that there was sufficient time for the Applicant's son to have been influenced and coached by a family member that night before presenting at hospital, to give the detailed disclosures that he did to multiple professionals. The Tribunal does not place any weight on the video evidence of the Applicant sparring with his son (which the Applicant states predate the assault), as this does not constitute direct evidence of sparring with sufficient force to have caused the observed injuries or prove that there were pre-existing injuries.

Age and conduct of Applicant since the conduct of concern

1. The Applicant is now 51 years of age. He was 26 years of age when the conduct of concern first commenced in 2000, and he was 49 years of age during the last reported incident in 2023.
2. The Applicant's conduct of concern spans over 23 years. Given the lengthy period of the offending and violent conduct and the recency of the last incident, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has made lasting positive changes. There is a risk that he will repeat the kinds of violent conduct that he has engaged in in the past.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has received appropriate treatment that has addressed his underlying mental health issues. While the Applicant's involvement in counselling for his personal and relationship issues is commendable, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is receiving the ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment that the psychiatrist in December 2023 recommended.

1. Children and adults have been the victims of the Applicant's violent conduct. The Tribunal considers that all the victims of the Applicant's conduct were vulnerable, either due to age, size, power imbalance, relationship to the Applicant, or the nature of the situation (such as being in a car being driven by the Applicant). One of the Applicant's partners was visibly pregnant at the time of the 2010 physical assault.
2. The Applicant was aware that the children who were victims, and exposed to his violent conduct, were children at the time of this offending conduct, as these were either his own children or his partner's children.

Likelihood and impact of the Applicant repeating the conduct

1. If the Applicant were to repeat violent behaviour in a domestic relationship, in the presence of a child, then that child would be at risk of psychological and possibly physical harm.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated appropriate insight or remorse in relation to his conduct of concern, because:

(1) He did not genuinely acknowledge the impact that his violent behaviour has had on the victims. This was evident in how he treated his son after the physical assault in 2015, by not having any contact with him in the two years that followed. The Applicant blamed his son for making up a story about being physically abused, but at the same time blamed the family member to whom the son ran away, for influencing and coaching his son for her own advantage. At no point did the Applicant reflect on the impact of his own conduct on his son.

(2) He did not fully accept responsibility for the role he played in the conduct of concern, nor could he explain why he had engaged in violent behaviour. This was evident when the Applicant could not explain why he had slashed his partner's mattress with scissors.

(3) He could not recall significant violent incidents (such as the first time he was convicted of a violent offence against his partner in 2000), despite having had access to the evidence of each of these incidents over the course of these proceedings.

(4) He minimised the seriousness of the incidents, and sought to put forward a version of events that was most positive to himself. He was reluctant to discuss in any detail his own poor behaviour, stating that he found it embarrassing.

(5) He blamed a 14-year-old child for initiating sexual behaviour towards him and attributed blame to the child's mother for previously buying alcohol for her, as a way of justifying his own purchase of alcohol for this child.

(6) Even though the Applicant said in his written statement that he has learnt to show empathy towards other people and see things from another person's point of view, the Applicant did not demonstrate this during cross-examination. This was particularly so when he was asked about sending a text message to his stepson about his teenage stepdaughter having sex with a friend's father. The Applicant could not recognise that she may have been in an abusive relationship given the fact that she was still a child, or acknowledge the power imbalance in that situation.

1. Given the lengthy history of the Applicant's conduct, his lack of insight and remorse and the absence of expert evidence as to the current state of the Applicant's mental health, the Tribunal is of the view that it is likely that the Applicant will continue to engage in violent conduct, particularly against people whom he has an interpersonal relationship and this could occur in the presence of children. While the Applicant is not currently living with any children, this does not mean that children will not be exposed to violent conduct by the Applicant in the future.

1. Having considered the s 30(1) factors, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.
2. Given the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, it is not necessary to consider the reasonable person test or the public interest test in s 30(1A) of the WWC Act.
3. As the Tribunal has determined that the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, it follows that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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