1. The Applicant's excessive consumption of alcohol had a detrimental effect on his relationship with his wife and his teenage elder daughter ("K") in particular. The Applicant's marriage has ended.

1. On the evening of 15 September 2014 - when the Applicant says he was not affected by alcohol - he perceived that K was disrespectful. K was then 15 years of age. They argued and he assaulted K. The Applicant says that K exaggerated the events when she reported the matter to the Police.

1. The Applicant was charged with "recklessly cause injury", "make threat to kill", and "assault by kicking". He contested the three charges and on 17 March 2016 he was convicted of all of them by the Magistrates' Court, which imposed a Community Corrections Order of 24 months' duration, with conditions requiring the Applicant to undergo treatment and rehabilitation.
2. The Applicant appealed to the County Court against sentence, and at that hearing on 20 October 2016 the prosecution withdrew the last two charges, and on the charge of "recklessly cause injury", the County Court found the Applicant guilty but without a conviction, reduced the length of the Community Corrections Order to 12 months, and imposed conditions in relation to treatment and rehabilitation.

1. In the hearing before me, the Applicant demonstrated that his perception of the outcome of the appeal was that it vindicated him, by showing that the legal system had recognised that K had exaggerated and that the original charges were the result of excessive zeal by the Police.

1. Unfortunately, whilst the Applicant presented well in the hearing, was largely candid, and drew my attention to relevant facts as he saw them, he proved that he lacks insight into the impact of his behaviour on his family. I have little doubt that he will perceive my decision as yet more evidence that no one will listen to him, but that very perception is a significant factor in why his application for review must be dismissed.

1. Even if K exaggerated the events, one cannot underestimate the impact on a youth, female or male, of an assault by an angry parent. The Applicant should have exercised care and restrained himself. So that the offences are not misunderstood or unduly played down, I quote from the summary given by Counsel for the prosecution in the County Court appeal[2], which was a fair summary of information in the charges, statements made to the Police and the like. Counsel told the presiding Judge that the Applicant disputed K's account in some respects:

The offence occurred on 15 September 2014 and the victim was the Applicant's daughter K.

He was home. K and her sister were surprised to see him because he was working in (a regional centre) at the time. They made a comment to him about him being home and he took it the wrong way and started to argue. An argument ensued and the Applicant started to call K a "bitch" and a "mole" and (said) "I'm going to kick your arse". The victim then slammed the sliding door at the entrance to the kitchen which made the Applicant more enraged. The Applicant managed to get his hand inside the door, grabbed K by the hair, and then entered the room, pushed her to the ground and grabbed K by the throat, held her to the floor by using force from his knee to keep her head in position. She felt pressure on her head and face which resulted in pain. He then hit her several times. She yelled for him to stop and she told him she was having trouble breathing.

(K) was trying to move away from her position by pressing her nails into his hands at the same time telling him to stop. Both of them stood up. He pushed K onto the bed, placing his hands around her throat. He continued to hit her, as she was trying to push him off, at the same time yelling for her sister. He tried to cover her mouth to stop her yelling. He then stopped, picked up her school bag and threw it at her, before leaving the room. She went upstairs to her sister's room to call the mother to come home. He left the house and returned to (the regional town). As a result of the assault, K received injuries, including bruising to the right eye, temple bruising, scratching to the left eye, bruising of the forehead and around her left temple, redness and swelling to her right ear, mild swelling to the bridge of the nose and bruising to the jaw area.

1. In giving evidence in chief before me, the Applicant said the following:

(a) The Applicant said he admitted the yelling and verbal name-calling, and recognises that his younger daughter ("A"), aged 11, who was in the house at the time would have heard it;

(b) The Applicant admitted forcing his way into the room, bear hugging K as a way of restraining her, and forcing her to the ground. He said he pushed her onto the bed, knowing that she would fall backwards safely onto a soft surface. In this respect he used his Police training in restraining people. Had he hit K as much as she alleged, she would have had broken bones, and yet the ambulance did not give her any medical treatment;

(c) The Applicant noted that there were no photographs of K's legs in the Police brief of evidence, and he said that as an experienced Police Officer he could say that had her legs been bruised they would have been photographed, thus proving that the legs were not bruised and so proving that he had not kicked her;

(d) The Applicant said that he did not throw the school bag; instead he picked it up and put pressure on it from both sides in a crushing motion, which he demonstrated in the hearing room;

(e) The Applicant believes he was only charged because he was a Police Officer, who was off duty at the time of the incident. The fact that he was off duty even made it hard for him to get assistance from the Police Association to defend the charges. He said he was staggered to be convicted by the Magistrates' Court, and the conviction ended his career as a Police officer.

1. Whilst disputing the degree to which he had battered K was significant, in terms of showing how little the Applicant understands the impact of his offending, his playing down of the "yelling and verbal name-calling" and his notion that crushing the school bag was an exercise of restraint, and not a threatening show of strength to a teenage girl, are disturbing.
2. In cross examination, the Applicant said that he took responsibility for the following actions: he entered the room, by pushing his way in using his shoulder when K was sitting on the floor with her back against the door holding him out; he reached in and grabbed her ponytail, and pulled her to the ground; and he forced K down. He said he does not seek to blame others, and he accepts that K suffered minor injuries. When asked whether he had pleaded guilty to the charge of "recklessly cause injury" it was because he recognised that he had caused an injury, he answered, "Yes, accidentally", although he maintained that he was taking responsibility, because he feels remorseful.

1. The Applicant said he did not threaten to kill K but did call her a "fucking bitch" and a "spoilt brat". He said he did not lose self-control, although he did raise his voice. He said he did not punch K in the face, knee her in the head, or kick her lower leg. He said he only pushed K back onto the bed, because when she got up from the floor he thought she was going to knee him in the groin.

1. There is more. After 15 September 2014, the Applicant texted his wife 1,119 times, including 56 insulting and threatening messages, and 242 harassing messages. The Applicant was arrested on 21 September 2015. These activities were in breach of an Intervention Order, in respect of which he was charged and received penalties from the Magistrates' Court, in a succession of charges and Court appearances.[3]

1. When cross-examined by Counsel for the Secretary about the texts and the Intervention Orders, it was put to the Applicant that he had chosen to breach the Intervention Order by sending a text on 15 October 2015, and the Applicant answered that he would not have been charged had he not been a Police Officer.

1. In relation to the contents of the text messages, the Applicant said his wife had previously said hurtful things to him, and that he had never been unreasonable to her. The Applicant said the vast majority of the texts were normal, and that he did not threaten or intimidate his wife. He does not concede that 242 of them were harassing. He said that some were "sarcastic".
2. Without labouring the point, I note that transcripts of these messages appear at pages 626 to 844 of the s49 documents of the Secretary, and the Applicant's description of their content beggars belief. Leaving aside those sprayed with obscenities, examples include that sent on 7 December 2014[4] in which the Applicant called his wife a liar who lived in a bubble, a golddigger, the smiling assassin, a dud, and a pathetic disloyal dishonest person; and that sent on 1 March 2015[5] in which the Applicant called his wife a total narcissist, disgusting, treacherous, and lacking a conscience. In describing these messages, the Applicant either gave untruthful evidence in the hearing, or demonstrated a lack of insight into his conduct.

1. In addition, on 19 September 2016 the Applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft between 9 and 17 September 2015. He was convicted and given a Community Correction Order for a 12 month period, on conditions[6].

1. In relation to this offence, the Applicant said that by September 2015 he and his wife were attempting to reconcile. They had met for some coffee on a few occasions, and she had agreed to the Applicant going to the former matrimonial home to mow the lawn and the like when she was not there. Being at the house brought up some feelings and on one such occasion the Applicant went into the master bedroom and took the wife's rings from her bedroom drawer. He said he did this so that she would listen to him[7]. Instead, though, she reported the matter to the Police, who arrested him and produced a warrant to retrieve the rings. The Applicant was admitted to a public psychiatric hospital as a result of this incident.

1. Whilst, in the hearing before me, the Applicant's presentation of the events of 15 September 2014 was along the lines that the Applicant had been the victim of a misunderstanding, exaggeration by K, and an overreaction by the Police who filed an excessive number of charges - which I consider is genuinely the Applicant's perception of events as a result of his depression and previous dependence on alcohol - it is necessary to record that he has demonstrated that he does not have an objective view of events. As unfortunate as it is for the Applicant, his perception of events satisfies me that he has little insight into the effect of his offending.

1. Under section 21B of the WWC Act, the Secretary (through a delegate) issued an Interim Negative Notice on 27 January 2015, which stated that the Applicant was being assessed to determine his eligibility to have an Assessment Notice[8]. Because of the charge of "make threat to kill" and "recklessly cause injury" under the definition in section 21AC(1)(b), the process was a Category B re-

assessment. Whilst the charge of "make threat to kill" was withdrawn at the appeal to the County Court, the County Court's finding of guilt in relation to "recklessly cause injury" means that this VCAT proceeding concerns a Category B application.

1. By letter dated 29 January 2015 the Applicant was invited to make a written submission to the Secretary if he sought to retain the Assessment Notice.

1. The Applicant wrote to the Secretary on 20 February 2015, making a submission and enclosing an extract of a letter written by Dr Peter Lovass MBBS (Hons) dated 22 January 2015, a reference from his wife dated 21 January 2015 and a certificate of completion of White Ribbon's Understanding Men's Violence against Women course dated 16 February 2015.

1. Dr Lovass wrote that the Applicant was biologically predisposed to mental health issues, with a family history of depression and alcohol issues. Dr Lovass opined that the Applicant has an anxious premorbid personality which, mixed with his stressful working environment, creates a relatively chronic and relapsing adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive features. His consumption of alcohol was related to anxiety related to work. He had made a WorkCover claim in relation to depression in 2005. The move to the regional town increased workplace stressors, which led to an increase in anxiety associated with secondary depressive symptoms, and it was within this context that his judgment and ability to control his behaviour had become impaired. The Applicant developed alcohol dependency disorder, in a well-intentioned but misinformed attempt to treat his anxiety. The Applicant was on medication management using antianxiety agents on an "as needed" basis. The marriage separation had led him to have suicidal thoughts but they were settling down. His outlook was good and there was a possibility of him returning to Police work.

1. The reference by the Applicant's wife said that the Applicant had been diagnosed with anxiety depression, and that his alcohol intake was a form of self-medication which had led him to binge drinking. She wrote that by the date of the reference the Applicant had realised the gravity of the situation, and was undertaking men's behavioural programs, seeing a psychologist, attending Dr Lovass his GP monthly, undertaking alcohol counselling through Anglicare, and that he had met with a WorkCover psychologist.

1. The Applicant also made a submission to the Secretary orally, which is recorded in a file note made by an officer of the Working with Children Unit[9]. The Applicant also submitted a report by Dr Tom Evans Psychologist dated 24 February 2015[10] in which Dr Evans largely concurred with Dr Lovass and added

that the Applicant has maladaptive, defensive coping mechanisms when under stress contributed to by strain at work and chronic conflict at home. He opined that workplace stressors were the antecedent factors in the building up of stress that led to the domestic violence on 15 September 2014.

1. An officer of the Working with Children Check Unit spoke to a teacher at the youngest daughter's school. Whilst fairly favourable, the teacher said that knowing of the charges she could not comment on whether she thought the Applicant was suitable to work with children[11]. The officer had a similar conversation with another parent at the school, who spoke positively of the Applicant.[12]

1. The Department of Health and Human Services wrote to the Check Unit on 17 March 2015. It was critical of the Applicant. It said it had been involved with the family after the assault. It said the Applicant had refused to meet with child protection practitioners, and presented as hostile and oppositional during telephone contact. It said the Applicant spent a period of time in a psychiatric unit following the assault, and the Department understood he had discharged himself against the advice of medical staff. The investigation noted that K and the Applicant's wife withdrew their statements to Police, and the Department was concerned that this was due to pressure from the Applicant. The Department substantiated physical and emotional abuse occurred in the case and that the Applicant was noted to blame K for the assault and to show little remorse. The Secretary sent a copy of the Department's letter to the Applicant, so that he could reply. The Applicant replied by telephone.[13] The Applicant said he believed he had only been charged because he was a Police officer, and that the Department's letter was grossly one-sided and unfair in that his supposed hostility was caused by high-handed conduct by the Department's officer. He said that he had given up alcohol on 6 February 2015. [I should say at this point that the Department's letter, and the Applicant's response to it, are unedifying. I do not take the Department's letter to be evidence of the truth of its contents. I note that the Applicant said that his experience of the Department, as a serving Police officer, had not been positive as he had seen the Department return children to unkempt premises and that he did not consider that it had sufficient resources].

1. On 27 April 2015 the Applicant's Assessment Notice was revoked. The Applicant was advised by letter, and given a statement of reasons.[14]

1. Section 26B(1) of the WWC Act provides that in a review of a decision to give a Negative Notice in relation to a Category B reassessment VCAT must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give an Assessment Notice unless satisfied that

giving the Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, having regard to any matters which the Secretary must have regard under s13(2).

(a) the nature and gravity of the offence or alleged offence and its relevance to child-related work; and

(b) the period of time since the applicant (ie the former holder of the Assessment Notice) committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and

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

(e) the ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and

(f) whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence or to which the charge relates has been decriminalised since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and

(g) the applicant's behaviour since he or she committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and

(h) the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the (holder); and

(i) any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application; and

(j) any other matter that the Secretary considers relevant to the application.

1. Section 26B(2) provides that in satisfying itself that giving an Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, VCAT must be satisfied that:

(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the applicant that was not directly supervised by another person while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work; and

(b) the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

Even if VCAT is satisfied under subsections (1) and (2) that giving an assessment notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, VCAT must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give the Assessment Notice unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the Assessment Notice.

1. Section 13(2)(a) The nature and gravity of the offence of which the County Court found the Applicant guilty in the appeal, and the circumstances of that offence according to the Applicant's version of events (and thus, for the purposes of this analysis, accepting the Applicant's claim that K exaggerated) are serious, grave, and highly relevant to child-related work.

1. The Applicant said that when he committed the offence he was not affected by alcohol. He also said that, as well as battering K, he told her beforehand that he would do so ("I'm going to kick your arse"). The Applicant's violence was triggered by his perception that K was disrespectful. These are very serious matters given that the violence was inflicted on a 15-year-old girl, who was the Applicant's daughter.

1. I consider that this criterion is strongly suggestive that giving an Assessment Notice would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. Section 13(2)(b) The offence was committed quite recently, in September 2014. It is not so long ago that it could be considered irrelevant to the issue of whether giving an Assessment Notice would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. I do not consider that this criterion favours the Applicant.

1. Section 13(c) The County Court made a finding of guilt in respect of "recklessly causing injury".

1. I do not consider that this criterion favours the Applicant.

1. Section 13(d) The sentence imposed by the County Court for the offence has some significance. The Applicant is subject to a Community Corrections Order which is still extant. The Court imposed conditions in relation to treatment and rehabilitation with which the Applicant is complying.

1. It is appropriate that the Applicant complies with the County Court's Orders. Because he is compelled to do so, the fact that he is doing so is only of little credit to the Applicant. On balance I do not consider that this criterion favours the Applicant.

1. Section 13(e) There was a considerable difference between the ages of the Applicant (41) and of K (15) when the Applicant committed the offence in September 2014. That the Applicant was K's father, in a position of trust and with a duty to protect his daughter, is also a significant factor.

1. I consider that this criterion is suggestive that giving an Assessment Notice would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. Section 13(f) The offence has not been decriminalised.

1. Section 13(g) For a considerable period after the offence the Applicant's behaviour was unacceptable, including as it did breaches of Intervention Orders and theft of his estranged wife's rings. As an experienced Police officer the Applicant would well understand the importance of Intervention Orders, and the seriousness of a breach, and the potential for a breach to result in a very significant sentence. The Applicant plays down the breaches, suggesting that they were almost accidental, but this reflects the Applicant's lack of insight into his offending. Stealing his estranged wife's rings was said to have been motivated by a desire that the wife speak to the Applicant, but this explanation is implausible. Items of personal adornment are different to everyday chattels, and the theft of them by an estranged spouse is an intrusive and threatening act. The Applicant's behaviour in this period was very serious.

1. Since September 2015 (a year after the offence) the Applicant's behaviour has been good. The Applicant's depression affects his outlook and perception. I accept his evidence that he has all but given up alcohol. There is no evidence that he has not complied with the County Court's Community Corrections Order. However, it is still only about 2.5 years since the offence and the Applicant has not had long enough to establish a pattern of behaviour since the offence which could satisfy me that giving an Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. On balance I do not consider that this criterion favours the Applicant.

1. Section 13(h) The "likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the" Applicant needs to be considered in the context of a considerable volume of material.

1. It emerges from the material filed in the proceeding that on 15 September 2014 the Applicant's wife said that the Applicant "does not realise the impact his behaviour has had on the family"[15]. In the Applicant's submission to the Secretary[16], he wrote in support of his application to retain his Assessment Notice that he and "K have clashed before when it's been difficult to invoke acceptable discipline measures". It is notable that the Applicant saw his conduct as a clash between himself and K, when at the time to which the Applicant was referring, K would have been perhaps 14 years of age. The Applicant's wife's statement to the Police[17] made on 15 September 2014 said that the Applicant had been a binge drinker when off duty for some time, and that he became angry when drunk, disrespectful to his daughters, and verbally abusive to the wife and the daughters. She said that about six times in the previous five years - which means when K was as young as 10 years of age - the Applicant had grabbed K and hurt her, leaving her with bruising as a result of being physically assaulted. She wrote that earlier in 2014 the daughter A telephoned her and said that the Applicant was pushing K down the stairs, and that when the wife arrived home and saw how upset the daughters were, the Applicant downplayed the incident and said that he was angry because K had not done what she was asked to do. In her statement to the Police the Applicant's wife said that she did not want him to be charged because of the stress it would cause to her and the family. She subsequently withdrew the statement, but this is not an indication that she had not given an accurate account when she made the statement. These matters described by the Applicant's wife are very serious.

1. When the Applicant was assessed for a Community Correction Order in March 2016 the Assessing Community Corrections Officer wrote[18] that the Applicant "was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised Screening Version". She wrote that, because the Applicant had completed the Men's Behavioural Change Program through Anglicare, which might otherwise be part of a Community Corrections Order, "it was respectfully recommended that a generic programs condition be on the order and not specify the Men's Behavioural Change Program to allow (the Applicant) to complete another program of that would assist to reduce the risk of him reoffending".

1. The Level of Service Inventory - Revised Screening Version[19] was prepared by an Assessor of Corrections Victoria, based on interviews with the Applicant. In a summary section, the author identified as "specific risk or need factors" that the Applicant had clear problems of compliance, anger management deficits, intimidating and controlling behaviour, racist and sexist behaviour, and had a history of committing physical assault. In a separate part of the summary the author said that the Applicant engages in denial/minimisation, had communication barriers, an antisocial personality and gender specific issues.

1. Documents recording the Applicant's participation in the Community Corrections Order[20] between March and April 2016, contain several observations of concern. There are numerous references to the Applicant attending appointments in an agitated state, being very guarded and obstructive, displaying paranoid thoughts, saying that his life was destroyed by his wife and daughter, having the intention that they will pay for it legally, saying that he accepts responsibility for his actions but at the same time minimising his actions and denying the injuries he caused to K, and being the victim of a "kangaroo court".
2. In a recommendation by the Case Manager of the Community Corrections Order made on 27 April 2016[21], the author wrote that the Applicant is considered to be in the "pre-contemplation stage of change currently", given that he denies minimises and justifies the offending behaviour; demonstrates a lack of remorse and justifies his actions, denying he committed the assault against his daughter; and had anger management deficits.

1. Dr Lovass (whose letter is included by the Applicant in his submission to the Secretary of 20 February 2015) also wrote a letter "to whom it may concern" on 30 May 2016. Dr Lovass wrote that he had been the Applicant's treating GP for about 12 years, during which the Applicant had been suffering from depression, anxiety, alcohol dependency, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He wrote,

"I am very concerned about the Applicant's ability to return to any working situation.

... The Applicant remains at high risk of significant relapse. He has an ongoing medical requirement for medication and counselling support. The Applicant would best be served with long term psychological care and will require visits with a psychologist over the years to come. (The Applicant) would also benefit from ongoing access to private psychiatric hospital outpatient day programs and psychiatrist overview. Inpatient care may also be required in the future".

1. On a more positive note, on 2 June 2016 the Applicant was assessed again under the Community Correction Order[22], and the author of this assessment said that whilst the Applicant had originally been assessed as a medium risk of reoffending, he was now assessed as a low risk.

1. The Applicant made sentencing submissions to the County Court in writing, in the hearing on 20 October 2016[23]. I appreciate the difficulty of the Applicant appropriately wanting to put matters before the Court which would rightly advocate for an acceptable outcome without wanting to be seen to be big-noting himself. But the written submissions end up displaying a lack of insight. The Applicant said he does not blame his family for his unsatisfactory reliance on alcohol[24], but the suggestion that one might blame their family is disturbingly self-centred.

1. He wrote in the sentencing submission, "I wish to express my sincere remorse for what has occurred. I meant no harm to K and my family! I maintain I did not assault her in the manner alleged despite the findings of the Magistrates Court. My consistent view is that she would have sustained very serious injuries had that been the case in the way that she has described. K I believe Your Honour has

not suffered unduly as a result of these matters and has managed to move on with her life which is a very good thing for her". These sentencing submissions are merely months old, and they show that the Applicant did not recognise the harm done to a 15-year-old girl by being assaulted by her father. The assertions that she had not suffered unduly and has managed to move on with her life are remarkable for the bankrupt perception that they reveal.

1. I take the view that the Applicant's inability to understand the consequences of his criminal conduct, as evidenced by the matters cited above, coupled with his expressions of remorse, show that there is a "likelihood of future threat to a child" presented by the Applicant. A person who was not such a threat would not be espousing the views that the young victim of the assault had not suffered unduly and had moved on. The very expression of those views convinces me that the expressions of remorse are formulaic and are not genuine.

1. I consider that this criterion is suggestive that giving an Assessment Notice would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. Section 13(i) & (j) do not require separate discussion having regards to the above.

1. Having regard to the matters which the Secretary must consider under s13(2), I am not satisfied that giving the Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. I must also consider, in reaching a conclusion under section 26B(1), the matters in section 26B(2).

1. Section 26B(2) In that context, I conclude first that a reasonable person would not 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 type of child-related work. In VQB v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VCAT 789 Judge McNamara said this of the thought process of a reasonable person:

The reasonable person would, in reaching his or her conclusions, acquaint himself or herself with all of the matters that have been placed before me, giving an Applicant for a positive assessment a right to be heard, as well as considering the material gathered by the Secretary. A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind, thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area in some overoptimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.

1. Looking at the matters discussed above in connection with section 13(2), a reasonable person would not allow his or her child to have direct contact with the Applicant that was not directly supervised by another person. Without repeating all of them, a reasonable person would undoubtedly take into account the gravity of the offence, which is not reduced by the fact that the Applicant said he was not affected by alcohol at the time; the fact that the offence was quite recent; and the material demonstrating that the Applicant does not appreciate the effect of his actions. A reasonable person would take into account the Applicant's attendances upon his medical practitioners and the reduction of his consumption of alcohol, but he or she would still not allow his or her child have direct contact with the Applicant.

1. I am not satisfied that giving the Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. It follows that I must, and I do, determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give an Assessment Notice.

1. It also follows that section 26B(3) does not need to be considered in this case.

1. The Applicant's application for review must be dismissed, and the Secretary's decision to issue a Negative Notice confirmed.

[1] The Applicant called this "self-medicating". He said he would never drink at work, but only at home, alone. At its highest level of consumption, he drank 1-2 two bottles of wine, 2-3 times a week.

[2] I have deleted peoples' names in this quote. The transcript is page 119 of the documents filed by the Secretary under section 49 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) [ "the s49 documents"].

[3] Section 49 documents pages: p151, on 17 March 2016 without conviction, fined $250.00 for breaching the Intervention Order on 17 October 2014; pp159 & 160 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order on 24 December 2015, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp161 & 162 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order on 24 February 2016, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp163 & 164 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order on 11 March 2016, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp165 & 166 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order on 13 March 2016, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp167 & 168 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order on 15 March 2016, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp169 & 170 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to persistently breaching Intervention Order between 24 February and 15 March 2016, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp173 & 174 on 19 July 2016, convicted on a plea of guilty to breaching Intervention Order between 9 September and 17 September 2015, and given a 12 month Community Correction Order with conditions; pp176 on 15 September 2016, without conviction, fined $750.00 for breaching Intervention Order on 23 March 2016; and pp177 on 15 September 2016, without conviction, fined $750.00 for breaching Intervention Order on 1 April 2016.

[4] Page 666 of the section 49 documents.

[5] Page 635 of the section 49 documents.

[6] Page 172 of the section 49 documents.

[9] Pages 44 - 47 of the section 49 documents.

[10] Page 50 of the section 49 documents.

[11] This is recorded in a file note at page 53 of the s49 documents.

[12] This is recorded in a file note at page 55 of the s49 documents.

[13] This is recorded in a file note at page 66 of the s49 documents.

[14] The Reasons begin at page 75 of the section 49 documents.

[15] Page 289 of the section 49 documents.

[16] Page 35 of the section 49 documents.

[17] Page 289 of the section 49 documents.

[18] Page 917 of the section 49 documents.

[19] Pages 936 - 943 of the section 49 documents.

[20] Pages 945 - 956 of the section 49 documents.

[21] Page 965 of the section 49 documents.

[22] Page 971 of the section 49 documents.

[23] Page 991 - 999 of the section 49 documents.

[24] Page 993 of the section 49 documents.