GXX v Office of the Children's Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 71;

1. The Applicant relied on the application for administrative review attaching submissions, a statement by the Applicant dated 29 September 2025, a psychologist report dated 9 October 2025 from Ms Mobarak of SM Psychology Mental health Services, a character reference from the Applicant's father dated 9 October 2025, who represented him at the hearing, an email from his current partner (SAZ), and a series of 'child safe policies' published by the Centre.
2. The Applicant brought three witnesses (SR, HC and SH) to the hearing and submitted statements from two of those witnesses at the hearing. These witnesses are all current or former employees or trainers at the Centre.
3. The Respondent relied on a number of bundles of documents which included their submissions, copies of police and court records, clinical notes obtained from SM Psychology Mental health Services, and affidavits.
4. The Respondent further relied on a set of documents lodged with the Tribunal on a confidential basis (the Confidential Bundle).
5. The Respondent also provided a bundle of documents filed under s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act), as well as written submissions to the Applicant and the Tribunal.
6. The Applicant and his three witnesses gave oral evidence and were cross examined at the hearing held on 24 February 2026. Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing.
7. Ms Mobarak gave evidence pursuant to a summons issued by the Respondent and was cross-examined.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision pursuant to s 30 of the CAT Act and sections 6, 7 and 9 of the ADR Act.
2. The Tribunal notes that the Act was amended as at 23 September 2025 upon the enactment of the Child Protection (Working with Children) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW). However, applications for review of decisions, which were made prior to those amendments taking effect, continue to fall within this Tribunal's jurisdiction for determination, as per cl 27, Part 6 of Schedule 3 of the (post-23 September 2025) Act.
3. All references in this decision hereafter and otherwise to the Act, will therefore refer to the version of the Act in place prior to 23 September 2025.
4. Section 27(1) of the Act provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review of a decision to refuse a WWCC.
5. The Application was made within 28 days of the Decision, in accordance with s 27(1) and the Tribunal is satisfied it currently has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Applicant's application.
6. As per s 63(3) of the ADR Act, the Tribunal may make orders including to affirm or vary the decision of the Respondent to cancel the WWCC, or to set it aside and either make a decision in substitution or remit the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration.

1. As per s 63 of the ADR Act, the role of the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to all of the material before it, including any relevant factual material which may not have been before the Respondent: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 at [25].
2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 27 of the Act is protective and not punitive in nature as per BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111 at [110].
3. As per Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111, at [63] citing Roberts v Balencio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436, the Tribunal has a "discretion to act on material which is rationally probative, but ...must determine in all the circumstances whether it is proper to act on such material and must act fairly towards the parties."
4. The objects of the Act are to protect children, as per s 3(a) by not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and s 3(b) by requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have Working with Children Check clearances.
5. Section 4 of the Act provides that the paramount consideration in the operation of the Act is the "safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse."
6. Section 8(1) of the Act prohibits a person from engaging in "child-related work" unless they hold the relevant WWCC clearance or there is a current application for a WWCC on foot.
7. Section 14 of the Act requires that a person be subject to a (risk) assessment requirement if any of the matters specified in Schedule 1 apply to that person.
8. Clause 1(6) of Schedule 1 of the Act provides that where a person has been convicted of, or proceedings have been commenced against a person for, offences involving violence or sexual misconduct sufficient to indicate a pattern of behaviour that warrants investigation as to whether it may cause a risk to the safety of children.
9. Clause 1(2)(f) of Schedule 1 of the Act includes the commencement of proceedings (regardless of outcome) with respect to s 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) (the DV Act) regarding stalking or intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm, where committed against a child.
10. Subsection 18(2) of the Act provides that the Children's Guardian must grant a clearance to a person who is subject to a risk assessment under Division 3 unless the Children's Guardian is satisfied that the person poses a risk to the safety of children.
11. In making a risk assessment, the Respondent may consider the following factors set out in section 15(4) of the Act:

(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 total criminal record 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,

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

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

1. The Applicant has a duty to disclose all relevant material pursuant to s 27(4) of the Act.
2. Section 30(1) of the Act sets out the factors the Tribunal must consider in determining a review application under section 27 of the Act. These essentially replicate the factors set out in s 15(4) of the Act to which the Respondent may have regard, when conducting their risk assessment, and are as follows:

(a) the seriousness of the offences with respect to which the person is a disqualified person or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or imposition of an interim bar;

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

(c) the age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred;

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

(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 total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred;

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

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

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

1. Section 30(1A) further provides that the Tribunal may not make an order which has the effect of enabling a person (the affected person) to work with children in accordance with the Act unless the Tribunal is satisfied that (a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the affected person that was not directly supervised by another person while the affected person was engaged in any child-related work, and (b) it is in the public interest to make the order.

1. The Applicant has been operating a martial arts instruction centre (the Centre) together with his father, for several years, and previously held a WWCC.
2. On 27 March 2023 a provisional ADVO was made against the Applicant in respect of his former partner (SL) with whom he shared a 1 year old child. This arose out of an incident where the Applicant and SL were arguing on the street about custody arrangements, whereby the Applicant slammed a car door with force, whilst holding the child, and allegedly threatened to punch SL. On 12 April 2023, a final ADVO was issued against the Applicant for 2 years, which expired in April 2025.
3. On 2 June 2023, the Applicant was arrested and charged with one count of common assault, domestic violence related, and one count of stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm, in relation to an incident occurring the previous evening with his then (and now current) partner (SAZ). An interim ADVO was issued that same day.
4. On 6 October 2023, the Applicant was charged with one count of stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm, towards his then partner (YM). The charges alleged threatening behaviour, intimidation and coercive control over YM who was living with the Applicant at that time. An interim ADVO was issued that day.
5. On 12 October 2023, the Applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of contravening the ADVO against YM.
6. The charges involving SAZ were heard on 29 July 2024, and the Applicant pleaded guilty to common assault, whilst the other charge was withdrawn. The Applicant was made subject to a Conditional Release Order (CRO) pursuant to s 9(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) requiring the Applicant to (i) not commit any further offences (ii) be supervised by a Community Corrections Officer; and (iii) participate in rehabilitation/treatment for anger management and domestic violence.
7. A final ADVO was then issued against the Applicant with respect to SAZ which expires on 28 July 2026.
8. The charges relating to the Applicant's alleged offences against YM were heard on 13 February 2025, and with respect to the stalking/intimidation charge, the Applicant was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order (CCO) of 10 months, which concluded on 12 December 2025. This required the Applicant to engage with his psychologist and accept (relevant) rehabilitative treatment.
9. The Applicant was fined $800 in connection with the ADVO contravention (the second count having been withdrawn), and a final ADVO was issued against the Applicant with regard to YM, which expires on 12 February 2027.
10. The Applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident in January 2024, and incurred serious injury requiring substantial physical rehabilitation, together with mental health treatment with a psychologist in relation thereto. This event is relevant to the Applicant's interactions with the psychologist.

1. The Applicant submits the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the Respondent's decision and grant the Applicant a WWCC. His grounds for this review include the following:

(a) He owns a martial arts centre which provides martial arts instruction to 250+ members, most of which are children under the age of 17 years old, whereby approximately 80% of the Centre's income is generated through children's classes.

(b) He cannot properly operate his business or earn a livelihood without a WWCC and is relying heavily on his father's assistance in this regard, even though his father was intended to be an investor rather than an active partner in the Centre.

(c) The Centre has robust child safety policies in place, and no instructor is ever left unsupervised when instructing a child.

(d) The Centre has never received a genuine complaint or concern regarding the Applicant or their treatment of children during seven years of working with them.

(e) The Applicant has not incurred any criminal offences since October 2023.

(f) The Applicant has undertaken online anger management courses, and has regularly attended a psychologist.

(g) The Applicant regularly attends a religious men's group which has assisted with his rehabilitation.

(h) The Applicant is 'remorseful and regretful' regarding his past conduct and has not "coerced, threatened, harassed, intimidated or assaulted any of them nor others since those unfortunate and isolated incidents".

(i) The Applicant has an amicable joint custody relationship with SL, and is now happily married to SAZ, with whom he has a child and another on the way.

(j) The Applicant is a 'changed man' who has reshaped his thoughts and attitudes and can now control himself, rather than turning to violence or abuse.

(k) That his criminal record does not relate to, and has no bearing on, his ability to provide support, guidance and coaching to children in the Centre.

(l) That he is receiving proper treatment and support in relation to his mental health issues.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that whilst he had a brief history of domestic violence against intimate partners, this had never involved a child or anyone at the Centre.
2. The Applicant submitted a letter of support for his WWCC application from Ms Mobarak, his treating psychologist, which contends that the Applicant's past offending behaviour was substantially related to an underlying mental health impairment, namely depression, anxiety and PTSD. She noted that the Applicant had shown treatment engagement, remorse and rehabilitation, and that he poses no psychological risk to children or vulnerable persons.
3. Ms Mobarak further noted in her report that the Applicant is fully aware of professional boundaries, child safety and self-regulation in his role as a martial arts coach, and has demonstrated compliance with treatment, emotional growth and has a strong support network which reduces the likelihood of reoffending.
4. Ms Mobarak's report notes that the Applicant has repaired his relationships with SAZ and SL and has shown maturity in conflict resolution and his ability to accept boundaries without aggression or coercion.
5. The Applicant's father submitted a statement contending that he has observed a significant shift in his son's manner.
6. During the hearing, the Applicant submitted that his mental health may decline further if he is refused a WWCC.
7. The Applicant provided three witnesses to attest to his character and ability to work safely with children at the Centre.

1. The Respondent submitted that they made the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances, and that their decision to refuse a WWCC for the Applicant should be affirmed by the Tribunal, for the reasons briefly outlined as follows:

(a) That the Applicant poses a safety risk to children because he has a number of serious and repetitive criminal convictions involving violence, coercion and intimidation, and continues to be subject to two ADVOs, one of which does not expire until 2027.

(b) That at the time of making this application, it had only been sixteen months since the Applicant's last offence, which is an insufficient period of time to demonstrate rehabilitation.

(c) That his offences are listed as assessment requirement triggers per cl 1(6) in Schedule I of the Act.

(d) One of the Applicant's offences occurred in the presence of his one year old child, noting that violence in their presence, can have a long-lasting effect on children.

(e) The Applicant's conduct demonstrated a sustained pattern of power and control towards his intimate partners, and caused ongoing harm to their mental health and well-being.

(f) That the Applicant did not in fact obtain treatment from a psychologist as instructed, for purposes relating to the CCOs, but rather for the purposes of a compensation claim relating to his motorcycle accident in January 2024.

(g) That Ms Mobarak did not treat the Applicant in respect of his domestic violence and related conduct, and was not made aware of those charges and offences until a session conducted in or around October 2025. Accordingly, her views on the Applicant's suitability to work with children should carry little weight.

(h) The Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated genuine insight, accountability and rehabilitation in respect of the relevant conduct.

(i) The Applicant has previously contravened an ADVO, and the CCO conditions, and should be considered more likely than not, to reoffend.

(j) That 'risk to the safety of children' is a 'real and appreciable risk' as per s 5B of the Act, and is not limited in scope to a risk which would arise only in particular child-related work ie the test is simply whether the Applicant poses any risk to children, irrespective of context.

(k) That in a context where the welfare of a child is paramount, the Tribunal should take the Applicant's criminal history into account when assessing the risk he presents, regardless of whether his history relates directly to the instruction of children or not.

(l) That if the Tribunal does not find that the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children, they must then consider the supplementary tests in s 30(1A) of the Act before granting the Applicant a WWCC clearance.

1. The Tribunal has to consider all of the evidence adduced by the parties in light of, and pursuant to, the mandated considerations contained in s 30 of the Act.
2. An application pursuant to s 27 of the Act is a merits review and not a review in which the Applicant must show that the decision maker was wrong as per Re Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88.
3. The issue which must be decided is whether in all the circumstances the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.
4. In BKE v Office of Children's Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523 at [27], the Court noted that the assessment of risk under the Act is not limited to the circumstances for which an Applicant seeks a clearance and whether he/she poses a "risk to the safety of children" in those circumstances. Instead, an Applicant is "subject to the full gamut of assessment which is applicable to persons who seek work in a child-related area."
5. The Applicant essentially relied on a characterisation of his past conduct as 'isolated' and resolved, and irrelevant in the context of providing martial arts instruction to children.
6. The Applicant repeatedly referenced children as those under 17 years of age, and it was unclear whether he properly appreciated that a child is defined as someone who is under the age of 18 years old. To this end, the Applicant submitted that he has never harmed or assaulted a person under the age of 17 years old.
7. The Applicant submitted that he has never had an intimate relationship with anyone at the Centre. However, this was not correct, as YM appears to have been an employee of the Centre prior to, and at the commencement of, her relationship with the Applicant.
8. The Applicant's first witness, SM, is a part-time contractor who provides martial arts instruction to ladies' classes at the Centre. She asserted that the Applicant was much admired and respected by all attendees at the Centre, although gave inconsistent and somewhat contradictory evidence around whether or not the Applicant currently interacted with children at the Centre or not.
9. SM became increasingly aggressive and defensive during cross-examination, and it became clear that she spends little time at the Centre outside of the classes she teaches, or those her children attend. SM was not aware of the Applicant's domestic violence history prior to the hearing.
10. The Applicant's second witness, SR, is an 18 year old instructor and administrator at the Centre who previously worked part-time at the Centre during the last five years, since she was 13 years old. Her evidence was similarly confused and contradictory with regard to the Applicant's recent and current involvement with children at the Centre. SR was not aware of the Applicant's domestic violence history prior to the hearing.
11. SR referenced, as did the Applicant, the leadership meetings he runs on Friday evenings at the Centre, noting that they did not involve children, whilst also noting that SR had been a part of the Centre's administration and attended those meetings regularly, despite only turning 18 years old more recently.
12. The Applicant's third witness, HC, was a former employee and friend of the Applicant. HC was aware of the Applicant's domestic violence history, although possibly not the extent of it. HC spoke positively about the Applicant, but was unable to offer any insight into his conduct, his rehabilitation nor with regard to the context of the Applicant's application for a WWCC.
13. The Applicant gave evidence, and was cross-examined extensively by the Respondent. There were significant contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Applicant's testimony, which suggested a general lack of insight into the seriousness of his past conduct and its relevance to working with children.
14. The Applicant provided copies of child safety policies from his Centre, in support of his understanding and appreciation for ensuring the safety of children who attend the Centre. However, upon questioning, it was unclear what involvement, if any, the Applicant had in producing these documents.
15. Further, it transpired that a number of his coaches acknowledged to be providing lessons to children, do not, or did not at relevant times, hold WWCCs themselves. The Respondent noted that these coaches, including the Applicant, were listed on the Centre's website as mentors for the kids' classes.
16. The Applicant's evidence regarding this issue, suggested that he was, by turns, indifferent to, or unaware of the importance of this requirement and oversight. The Applicant then submitted that he had encouraged his staff to obtain a WWCC, but did not mandate or follow up whether this instruction had been complied with or not.
17. The Respondent noted that there are a number of negative Google reviews on-line regarding the Centre, notably three which reference child safety. When presented with these, the Applicant dismissed those complaints as all attributable to YM in the context of their relationship breakdown. The Applicant refused to consider that they required substantive investigation, because he just 'knew' that they were baseless and generated by YM and her family.
18. One of those appears to have been posted by a relative of YM, however there is no evidence that the other two reviews can be attributed to YM. One of those asserts that the "instructor very inappropriate and preys on young girls. Sick! Authorities should close this place down" and the other advises "Keep your kids away from this place! If you want your kids safe stay away!"
19. The Applicant advised that he currently sees his psychologist twice a month, and submitted that he had sought treatment from her with regard to his CCO ordered rehabilitation. When pressed, it became apparent that, despite the CCO issuing in February 2025 mandating treatment, the Applicant had only one session with Ms Mobarak around October 2025 where he disclosed his domestic violence history for the first time, and one additional one, just prior to this hearing.
20. The psychologist, Ms Mobarak, gave evidence via a videolink, later in the hearing. It became clear during her testimony, that she had been treating the Applicant only in respect of his depression/PTSD/anxiety issues emanating from his motorcycle accident, for the purposes of an insurance claim.
21. In the materials obtained by the Respondent, there was a report dated 7 October 2025 issued by Ms Mobarak for the purposes of the Applicant's insurance claim relating to his motorcycle accident.
22. In that report, Ms Mobarak noted that the Applicant has ongoing major depressive disorder, persistent PTSD symptoms, generalised anxiety disorder, notable dissociative symptoms, ongoing functional incapacity, and significant emotional fragility.
23. She further noted in that report that the Applicant's psychological deterioration is significant and sustained, despite consistent psychological therapy, and that he required ongoing risk monitoring.
24. The overall flavour of that report was that the Applicant's mental health condition was 'extremely severe' comprising "severe emotional dysregulation, likely exacerbated by chronic pain". She continues to conclude that his "return to work or functional reintegration remains premature due to his significant psychological and physical impairments."
25. Conversely, Ms Mobarak's report dated 9 October 2025 (issued two days after the report referenced above) regarding the Applicant, written with respect to these proceedings, contends that the Applicant has "actively engaged in therapy, applying strategies discussed in sessions and regularly, reflecting on his behaviour." She further concludes that the Applicant has shown "marked improvement in impulse control, emotional regulation, and interpersonal functioning, particularly in the context of intimate relationships".
26. Ms Mobarak admitted that she had not been advised by the Applicant of his domestic violence conduct or CCO conditions, nor had he sought her assistance in regard to his anger management issues and rehabilitation in this context, until recently, and then only in one session prior to providing her report of 9 October 2025 in support of the Applicant's WWCC application.
27. When questioned about her clinical notes which had been obtained by the Respondent under summons and tendered in the proceedings, Ms Mobarak advised that she had taken handwritten notes during a long session in or around October 2025 with the Applicant in respect of his domestic violence related conduct and offences. She was unable to provide an explanation as to why these notes, including any other notes pertaining to her consideration of these issues, were not in the file provided.
28. Ms Mobarak suggested there had been a typo in her 9 October report whereby she had intended to suggest the Applicant was in the process of rehabilitating, rather than stating that he was fully rehabilitated.
29. There are significant and direct contradictions between these two reports. It further appears that certain statements regarding the Applicant's active engagement with strategies and general improvements, are based on a single session, given that Ms Mobarak was unaware of the Applicant's domestic violence history and the CCO condition until that session.
30. Given that the conclusions drawn in her two reports differ materially, we have to give far greater weight to her considered diagnoses contained in the 7 October report, given they are based on several months of treatment for the Applicant's post-accident condition, whilst the 9 October report is based only on one relevant session.
31. We find, on balance, that Ms Mobarak's conclusions, offered immediately after being advised for the first time about the Applicant's offences and history against three different intimate partners during 2023, are neither supportable nor credible.

Consideration of the factors in s 30(1) of the Act

1. We have set out below our findings as to the factors in s 30(1) of the Act (other than the factors in s 30(1)(f) and (j1) which are inapplicable).
2. With regard to s 30(1)(a), we find that the Applicant's relevant conduct and criminal history are extremely serious. Both the number of incidents and the range of conduct are objectively significant.
3. The Applicant submits that these are isolated incidents, and bear no relationship to the workplace generally and no relevance to working with children. However, there were in fact repeated incidents, involving three different partners (one of which was an employee of his Centre), and including one incident which occurred in the presence of his one year old child.
4. With regard to s 30(1)(b) only two and a half years have elapsed since the Applicant's last offence (as opposed to the three years incorrectly claimed by the Applicant to have elapsed at the time of this application in March 2025).
5. Whilst it appears that there has been no re-offending since 2023, the last of these matters were dealt with in February 2025. The Applicant has two ADVOs which are currently issued against him, one expiring in July 2026 and the other not until February 2027.
6. Given the inherent unreliability of his psychologist's report in this regard, the Applicant has adduced almost no evidence to support a finding that he has engaged in meaningful and independently verifiable rehabilitation.
7. We therefore consider that insufficient time has passed since the commission of those offences, to enable us to make any compelling findings about his conduct since.
8. With regard to s 30(1)(c) and (g), the Applicant was aged 24 at the time of his offences and is now 27 years old.
9. With regard to s 30(1)(d) and (e), the relevant 'victims' were the Applicant's intimate partners, and one incident occurred in the presence of his one year old child. Two of the Applicant's intimate partners were of similar age to the Applicant, whilst the third, YM, is seven years younger, and according to her statement to the police, had turned 18 years old only weeks prior to entering into an Islamist marriage and cohabitation with the Applicant.
10. In CPK v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 151, the Tribunal noted at [130-131] that "children may be physically or psychologically injured by violence or other abusive behaviour by an adult" and that "the child can learn from the adults that violence and other abuse are acceptable ways to deal with other people." In this regard, we note that the Community Corrections Officer in his report and case notes of April 2025, detailed the Applicant's report of growing up in a household with domestic violence. The Community Corrections Officer further noted that there are significant concerns given the Applicant's three ADVOs and notes that "It is of great concern that...takes no responsibility for his offending and has a tendency to blame the victims for doing wrong by him, which presents as problematic."
11. With regard to s 30(1)(h), as per [88] above, we find that the Applicant's relevant conduct and criminal history involve serious offences.
12. The Applicant further has some history of non-compliance since, including a contravention of an ADVO, as well as an apparent failure to properly meet all the conditions of his CCOs, and a failure to ensure his relevant staff obtained and held WWCCs.
13. Whilst not pressed by the Respondent during the hearing, the testimony of the Applicant's various character witnesses inadvertently suggested that the Applicant has continued to work with or around children, however we make no findings in that regard.
14. With regard to s 30(1)(i), no compelling or independent evidence was adduced by the Applicant as to why the Tribunal should be confident that he will not reoffend. His own psychologist reported that the Applicant suffers from serious mental health conditions and that it would be premature for him to return to work.
15. The Applicant's father, acting as his representative in these proceedings, posited that a refusal to grant his WWCC could have serious repercussions, in that he was not sure what the Applicant might do in the face of such rejection. Despite his apparent belief otherwise in making this submission, this rather suggests that the Applicant lacks the emotional stability to be granted a WWCC.
16. With two ADVOs still on foot for the next year, we do not think sufficient time has passed since the Applicant's most recent infractions, to reasonably make a finding that he is unlikely to reoffend.
17. As per FPV v Children's Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 59 at [104], which we adopt: _"_In assessing the evidence as to risk, the Tribunal is not required to find that there is a likelihood of the same conduct / misconduct. All that is required is the presence of risk of a sufficient level, not necessarily likely or significant risk of harm but the presence of a risk of harm."
18. With regard to s 30(1)(j), the Applicant did not provide any character references which indicated an awareness of his offences and ADVOs apart from that submitted by his father and his current partner, SAZ.
19. SAZ sent an email to the Tribunal advising that she and the Applicant are now in a happy relationship and she no longer feels unsafe with him, however she did not appear as a witness at the hearing.
20. Two of the Applicant's character witnesses at the hearing, had no prior knowledge of the Applicant's offences or ADVOs, and the third appeared to have only a cursory knowledge of the existence of such. Whilst they all spoke fondly of the Applicant, for the reasons outlined earlier in this decision, none of those witnesses provided compelling, consistent or particularly relevant evidence, such that it would sway this decision.
21. The Applicant submitted that he has taken significant rehabilitative steps, however there was no independent evidence provided regarding any certifications obtained from courses undertaken, or from the religious men's group attended. Accordingly, we cannot afford those claims significant weight.
22. We acknowledge the submissions of the Applicant with respect to the 'unfairness' of not having access to, and therefore the opportunity to make submissions against, the material provided within the Confidential Bundle. To this end, we note that the material provided generally bolsters, but is not in any way integral to, our determination in this matter.
23. The Respondent sought to schedule an additional hearing to introduce further confidential material in support of their position, however this request was denied, in order to ensure procedural fairness to the Applicant.
24. Similarly, the Applicant lodged additional submissions with the Tribunal in the days following the final hearing, and these could not be taken into account, in order to ensure procedural fairness to the Respondent.
25. With regard to s 30(1)(k), we consider that the matters raised by the Respondent have compellingly demonstrated that the Applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. His reasonably recent and serious domestic violence offences, his current ADVOs, his ongoing serious mental health issues, and his various non-compliance occurrences, all combine to create a real and appreciable risk on any ordinary understanding of that term.
26. We have considered all of the matters in s.30 (1) of the Act, and are satisfied that the available evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children posed by the Applicant.
27. Given the determination above, section 30(1A) is not enlivened in this matter, and accordingly has not been addressed.
28. The Respondent's decision is therefore affirmed.

(2) An order pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting, with the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or disclosure of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings including mandatory reporters or risk of harm reporters.

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.