The Tribunal had regard to further material submitted by the parties that was not before the Central Assessment Unit.

• The Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied that the alleged conduct either did occur or did not occur. However, the consistency of the detailed accounts provided by the complainant lead the Tribunal to find at least a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child.
• The Tribunal finds it is unlikely that the applicant will engage in similar behaviour in future, but if he were to this could result in immediate and long-term harm to children. The possible future harm here is serious, even where there is a minimal chance it will occur.
• The Tribunal cannot consider the effect of its decision on the applicant, or the circumstances of his current employment, where not granting a prohibition notice would allow the applicant to work with children in all contexts.
• The relevant assessable information, when appropriately weighted, leads to the conclusion that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
• The correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the decision of the respondent, and prohibit the applicant from working with children.

Administrative Review - Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 - Review of a decision by the Central Assessment Unit to issue a prohibition notice - Unacceptable risk to children - Consideration of convictions - Consideration of unproven allegations - Nolle prosequi

Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37

GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38

Marshall v Department of Human Services - Central Assessment Unit [2023] SACAT 83

Mr D Tsimiklis, Websters Lawyers, appeared in person for the applicant

Ms L Hodge, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared in person for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is the determination of an application to review a decision of the respondent to issue a prohibition notice under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 (CSPP Act).
2. The matters for determination in this matter include:

(a) What, if anything, did the applicant do?

(b) Does the applicant pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children and should the applicant be permitted to work with children?

1. I have considered all the material before me, including the Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, outline of argument by the applicant (dated 27 November 2024), outline of argument by the applicant (dated 28 January 2025), outline of argument by the respondent (dated 11 February 2025), supplementary outline of argument by the respondent (dated 12 September 2025), and submissions and evidence at the hearing.
2. For the reasons that follow, in my view, the correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the decision of the respondent.
3. The relevant assessable information, when appropriately weighted leads to the conclusion that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

1. The decision the subject of this review is based on unproven allegations from 2015 made by a seven-year-old child (complainant). The applicant was in a relationship with the mother of the complainant and resided in the same family home as the complainant.[1] The applicant has maintained at all times that the allegations are false.[2]
2. It is alleged that between 5 April 2015 and 14 July 2015, the applicant sexually assaulted the complainant when she was seven years old. The alleged conduct includes:[3]

(a) The complainant states that one night her mother and brother were watching a movie in her mother's room and she was watching television with the applicant in the lounge. The complainant states that the applicant grabbed her and put her on his lap. The applicant then exposed his genitals and made the complainant grab his penis. The applicant also asked the complainant if she wanted to lick his penis;

(b) The complainant states that she was working on some bikes in the garage with the applicant. The complainant then went to her bedroom to choose some clothes to cycle in. The complainant states that the applicant followed her into her room and pulled down his pants and exposed his genitals. The complainant states that the applicant's penis was pointing out in her direction and the applicant asked her to touch his penis. The complainant refused;

(c) The complainant states she went to her mother's bedroom when the applicant was sleeping in the bed to ask to get some food. The complainant states that the applicant pulled back the blanket and she saw he was naked. The complainant states that the applicant pulled her on top of him and she touched his penis;

(d) The complainant states that she was in her bedroom at her desk and the applicant came in and pulled down his pants exposing his genitals. The complainant states that the applicant then stated that when you have sex you need to learn to use your mouth and asked the complainant to use her mouth on him. The complainant further states that the applicant asked her if she wanted to see what people do in the middle of sex. The complainant refused both requests by the applicant.

1. The allegations were reported and resulted in the applicant being charged with two counts of aggravated offence - make person sexually manipulate offender, one count of gross indecency, one count of disorderly behaviour and two counts of procuring an act of gross indecency.[4]
2. The Certificate of Outcome from 24 March 2016 confirms that the charges were committed for trial to the District Court of South Australia.[5]
3. Although criminal charges were laid, the charges were not proceeded with and the charges were not proven.[6]
4. The Certificate of Outcome from 27 March 2017 confirms the Director of Public Prosecutions entered nolle prosequi in relation to all counts in the District Court of South Australia.[7] It appears that the prosecution ended on the day the trial was scheduled at the request of the complainant in March 2017.[8]
5. In relation to the quality of the assessable information, in my view, the quality is moderate. Although the assessable information comes from credible sources such as records from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Child Protection, South Australia Police (the police) and the Courts Administration Authority of South Australia,[9] no allegations have been proven on either a criminal or civil standard. I accept that the assessable information accurately records information that was reported however, aside from the accounts of the applicant and the complainant, there are no witnesses or corroborating material. I do place weight on the assessable information but less weight noting that no allegation has been proven against the applicant.
6. Importantly, when considering unproven allegations, an assessment of its likelihood of occurrence must be undertaken. If the past event is unproven some accommodation must be made for the possibility that it did not occur. If the conclusion is that it did not occur, then that is the end of the matter. It cannot be considered. If there is a possibility that the unproven allegations did occur then, although they may be taken into account, they cannot be given the same weight as a proven outcome, and the result must be applied to reach a determination of the extent to which that past event contributed to the finding of an appreciable risk: Marshall v Department of Human Services - Central Assessment Unit [2023] SACAT 83.
7. When determining the likelihood of occurrence of the allegations, I have considered all the material in this matter, including the applicant's account and the complainant's account.
8. The applicant gave evidence on affirmation to me that at the time of the allegations, he was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and was living with the complainant, her mother and her brother. The context of the allegations is that the applicant's previous partner found the complainant looking at inappropriate material on YouTube.[10] The complainant then disclosed the allegations to her mother and her mother told the applicant. The applicant immediately denied the allegations, however, the complainant's mother asked him to leave and he did so. The applicant hoped that things would change and that the complainant would admit she did not tell the truth however the situation did not change and he has never spoken to his previous partner or her children since the allegations. The applicant said that the police seized his laptop to check if he had a sexual interest in children and the police found nothing incriminating. The applicant also gave some evidence suggesting that the complainant's account may be inherently implausible. For example there was a small distance, approximately five to six metres, between the lounge and bedroom and the complainant's mother and brother may have been able to see the conduct on the couch if it occurred. The applicant said that the impact of the allegations has been awful on him and he has suffered from anxiety, depression and struggled to sleep. The applicant now has a new partner who is aware of the allegations. The applicant said that, as a result of the allegations, he avoids children as much as possible and he is generally anxious around children if he is by himself. The applicant said he is not planning to work with children as children annoy him but his work requires him to obtain a working with children check for incidental contact with children during contract work.
9. I do place weight on the applicant's evidence noting that it was on affirmation and his vehement denials of the conduct. I agree with the submission of Mr Tsimiklis that there were examples in his evidence that suggested his account was not self-serving. For example, he admitted that children annoy him and that he feels anxious around children if by himself. Further, when offered the opportunity to explain why the complainant may have made up the allegation, the applicant admitted that he is not aware of any reason why the complainant would have made up the allegation.
10. The complainant was formally interviewed by the police on two occasions, being 15 July 2015[11] and 21 May 2016.[12] In summary, during those interviews, the complainant said:

(a) The applicant used to live with her but does not anymore after "he did something really wrong to me";[13]

(b) On one occasion, her mother was watching a movie in her bedroom[14] with her brother and she and the applicant were sitting in the lounge room watching television and the applicant lifted her onto his lap and showed her his "privates and made me touch them";[15]

(c) When her mother went to get something from the shops, the applicant came into her room and pulled her arm towards "his privates and made me touch it and said do you want to lick his privates".[16] The applicant also said "do you wanna have s-e-x with me or do or do you want me to show you how to um have it s-e-x";[17]

(d) When the applicant was working on some bikes, she and the applicant looked at her wardrobe for things to wear on the bike ride and he said "do you want to touch my privates again."[18] She did not touch his "privates" on that occasion;[19]

(e) When she was in the applicant's room, he pulled her into his arms and her legs touched "his willie"[20] and the applicant was naked;[21]

(f) She looked at some "yucky stuff on the computer", including watching videos of sex and the applicant got the things on the computer.[22]

1. I have closely read the transcripts of the complainant's interviews and, in general, particularly having regard to the child's young age, I consider the complainant's account detailed and consistent. Importantly, at the time of the allegations, the complainant understood the difference between a lie and the truth and gave examples relating to what is a lie and the truth.[23] Further, in my view, the complainant understood the allegations she was making because the complainant was able to explain that "privates" means "willie" and "gina" and that privates you "go to the toilet with"[24] and she was also able to accurately depict where "privates are"[25] on a picture of a human body. Her account is also detailed. For example, she described the applicant's "privates" as "soft and hard"[26] meaning "... the skin around it was soft and the stuff in the middle was hard".[27] She also described her hand on his penis as the applicant putting her "hand up and down and kept on doing it."[28] In the main, the complainant's account is consistent. For example, the applicant on two occasions described the incident in her room consistently and spoke about the applicant making her touch his "privates" and the applicant saying do you want to lick his "privates".[29] The complainant also makes reasonable concessions. For example, she admits that she might be "getting mixed up"[30] between incidents.
2. There are some inconsistencies with the complainant's account, however. For example, the applicant says in relation to the lounge room incident that the applicant made her touch his "privates"[31] however later said that he "showed me his privates and then he touched them."[32] The complainant later clarified that the applicant made her touch his "privates"[33] and that the applicant did not touch his "privates".[34] Given the age of the complainant and the number of allegations, in my view, her allegations are generally consistent.
3. I do, however, have some concerns with the complainant's account. For example, she states that she might have forgotten some of the things[35] and "some of the things might have been a dream cause every single night I have a dream about that now I can stop having dreams about that."[36] She also states that her "brains getting confused" because she is tired and "can't remember."[37] She also said the time that she was at her desk happened when she had a dream and that did not actually happen in real life.[38] Although I consider it reasonable and plausible that the complainant may have forgotten some details, I am concerned about her being unclear about whether some of the events happened in real life or in a dream. I also consider the complainant's memory of events seems to have faded considerably in the second interview with the police when she says on a number of occasions that she cannot remember certain events that occurred.[39]
4. I accept the respondent's submission that:[40]

(a) The complainant's ability to accurately describe what an erect penis felt like, which the respondent submits, would be highly unlikely for a seven-year-old girl to know, lends strong support to the view that the events occurred as she described. (Having said that, I do note that there is evidence she was exposed to pornography, including watching videos of sex);[41]

(b) The complainant was interviewed on two occasions, providing clear and detailed accounts of the allegations, and her story remained largely unchanged on each occasion. (However, in my view, the complainant's memory had faded considerably at the time of the second interview);

(c) While the other witness statement did not corroborate events the complainant described, neither did it contradict the allegations.

1. I do place weight on the complainant's account noting it is consistent and detailed and she understood the allegations she was making. However, I place some reduced weight noting that she was unclear about whether some of the events happened in real life or in a dream and, in my view, her memory faded considerably in the second interview with the police.
2. The applicant submits that the respondent made no allowance for the young age of the complainant and the likelihood that children have limited abilities to recall detail and can be subject to undue influence and persuasion.[42] I acknowledge the submission of the applicant and do place weight on those factors however I note there is no evidence in this particular case that the complainant had limited abilities to recall detail and was subject to undue influence and persuasion. The fact alone that a complainant is of a young age does not mean their evidence is inherently unreliable.
3. The applicant also submits that the respondent failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's presumption of innocence and right to due process.[43] I acknowledge, pursuant to the criminal law, that the applicant is presumed innocent and there are no proven criminal matters against him. I also acknowledge that the allegations were not tested in a court and the applicant did not have the opportunity to test witnesses.[44] However, this scheme is entirely protective of children and Parliament has allowed decision-makers to place weight on unproven matters where those matters are rationally probative in the determination of whether a person poses an unacceptable risk to children.
4. The applicant also submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent reviewed a video recording of the prescribed interview of the complainant, and review of the transcript is inherently flawed as it does not allow for an assessment of the tone and nuance of the questions and answers.[45] In response, the respondent submitted that it was open to the respondent to consider the transcript of the witness interviews only and, indeed, it would not be usual to view the video recording of an interview in addition to the transcript. Arguably, a transcript of interview provides the decision-maker with a more objective account of the evidence, given the possibility that viewing a video with a possibly distressed child would sway the viewer to adopt a more sympathetic view of the complainant.[46] I place weight on the transcript of the interviews noting that there is evidence that the transcripts are true and accurate recordings of the interview,[47] however, I place some reduced weight on those transcripts noting that they do not allow for an assessment of the tone and nuance of the questions and answers.
5. There was much dispute in this case about the decision to nolle prosequi the charges with the respondent submitting this is because the complainant did not wish to provide evidence and the applicant submitting that a negative assessment of the complainant's evidence may have resulted in the decision to nolle prosequi the charges.[48] I place weight on the decision to nolle prosequi the charges and the evidence that the complainant did not wish to provide evidence. Although I accept that it is possible that there may have been a negative assessment of the complainant's evidence that may have resulted in the decision to nolle prosequi the charges, there is simply no evidence before me that this occurred in this case and I therefore place very little weight on this submission.
6. The Working with Children Check Guidelines (July 2024) give decision-makers some guidance in relation to weighting information sources. Given the complainant's evidence was consistent and detailed, greater weight should be given to her evidence.[49] Further, greater weighting ought to be given to the assessable information as it is closely connected to whether or not the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to children.[50] On the other hand, less weight should be given to the evidence because it is not corroborated or tested in a court of law[51] and it is an unproven allegation.[52] Unproven allegations will carry significantly less influence in the assessment of risk as there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.[53]
7. The following factors lend weight to a finding that the allegations occurred, including:

(a) The fact of the complaint;

(b) The specificity of the complaint. For example, the complainant's ability to accurately describe what an erect penis felt like;

(c) The consistency of the complaint;

(d) No evidence of improper motives; and

(e) The fact that the police laid charges.

1. On the other hand the following factors lend weight to a finding that the allegations did not occur including:

(a) The applicant's vehement denials of the conduct;

(b) No other complainant making similar allegations;

(c) The complainant's brother and mother did not witness any inappropriate behaviour;[54]

(d) No corroborating evidence;

(e) The applicant's computer was seized with no incriminating evidence found;

(f) The fact that the police did not pursue the charges;

(g) The applicant remaining offence free since the alleged conduct;

(h) Evidence that the applicant has avoided children since the allegations came to light as this suggests no prurient interest in children;[55]

(i) Evidence before me suggesting a level of implausibility in relation to the allegations because, if they occurred as described, the complainant's mother or brother might have seen the conduct;

(j) Some concerns with the complainant's evidence, for example, she was unclear about whether some of the events happened in real life or in a dream and, in my view, her memory faded considerably in the second interview with the police.

1. I agree with the submission of the respondent that the allegations do not lend themselves to a definitive factual determination and that the Tribunal cannot reach either a positive conclusion that the allegations are true, and nor can the Tribunal reach a positive conclusion that they are not true.[56]
2. I cannot say whether the conduct occurred as there are factors both for and against suggesting the allegations occurred. However, in my view, the conduct should be given sufficient weight (although not total weight allowing for the possibility that the allegations are not true) because the assessable information gives rise to at least a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child.[57] I say this because of the consistency and specificity of the complainant's account.
3. However, I reject the respondent's submission that the Tribunal can be reasonably satisfied that there is a likelihood, on the whole of the evidence, that this allegation of past conduct did occur[58] and that the unproved allegations, when considered together, present a high likelihood of having occurred as alleged.[59] I simply cannot say with any degree of confidence whether the allegations occurred or not.
4. In summary, I cannot say whether or not the alleged conduct occurred and I must give consideration, and I do so, to the possibility that the unproved allegations did not occur. I therefore place weight on the allegations but less weight allowing for the possibility that they did not occur. In my view, the conduct should be given sufficient weight, however, because the assessable information gives rise to at least a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child.[60]

Whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children and should he be excluded from working with children?

1. I do place weight on the respondent's decision[61] noting the expertise of the respondent in conducting risk assessments. I agree with the respondent's finding that there is a "reasonable suspicion that the conduct as charged may have indeed occurred as reported."[62] However, I place some reduced weight on the respondent's decision noting that I have had the benefit of further evidence, including evidence on affirmation from the applicant.
2. In relation to the nature, gravity and circumstances of the allegations, there is no doubt that the allegations are grave. If the conduct occurred, it involved a serious breach of trust against a vulnerable complainant. Further, the alleged offending occurred on a number of occasions in which it is likely that the complainant would have experienced significant emotional and psychological harm[63] as well as sexual harm. The following relevant factors according to the Working with Children Check Guidelines (July 2024) are said to increase risk: abuse of power or breach of trust, conduct committed against a child, nature of allegation translates as a risk to working with children, and allegation of sexual offence.[64] These factors do not fall in the favour of the applicant.
3. In terms of the length of time that has passed since the conduct, I acknowledge the alleged offending occurred in 2015 and there has been ten years since the alleged offending. This factor falls in favour of the applicant particularly acknowledging that he has been living in the community since this time with no offending conduct. The applicant has not been the subject of any investigation by the police and has not been charged or prosecuted with any further offending whatsoever.[65] I also understand he has not been the subject of any complaint or investigation at work.
4. In relation to the vulnerability of any victim, the complainant was aged seven when the alleged conduct occurred and is clearly a vulnerable person, being a child and the applicant was in a position of trust over her. This factor does not fall in the favour of the applicant.
5. In relation to the applicant's conduct since the allegations, in the applicant's favour, I place weight on:

(a) The applicant has no prior or subsequent history of such conduct;

(b) The applicant has worked in the hospitability industry for approximately twelve years without allegations of concern;

(c) The applicant is employed as an apprentice cabinet maker having commenced employment in May 2023[66] and there have been no allegations of concern.

1. I cannot say whether it is likely that the applicant will engage in behaviour that he has been accused of in the past in the future, but I consider it unlikely because of the passage of time since the allegations with no further allegations of a similar kind. However, if the applicant does engage in behaviour that he has been accused of in the past, it could result in immediate sexual harm towards a child and longer-term emotional and psychological harm. Where the possible future harm is serious (as it is here) then even a minimal chance or possibility that it will occur would usually be sufficient to regard that outcome, or risk to children as unacceptable.[67]
2. This case is very difficult because the applicant may be entirely innocent of the charges against him and there has been a lengthy period of time since the allegations and many factors pointing towards the allegations not being true. On the other hand, the allegations are abhorrent, are made by a young child and, in my view the allegations are detailed and consistent and there is at least a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child.
3. On balance, the applicant is an unacceptable risk of harm to children and ought to be prohibited from working with children having regard to:

(a) There is a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child;

(b) The risk of reoccurrence (being unlikely);

(c) The gravity of harm should it occur (being high);

(d) The totality of the evidence in this case; and

(e) The paramount consideration in respect of the administration, operation and enforcement of the CSPP Act must always be the best interests of children, having regard to their safety and protection.[68]

1. I acknowledge that the applicant will be disappointed with my decision particularly as his employer has required him to obtain a working with children check to attend worksites and premises which require accreditation.[69] The applicant submits that his carpentry work involves no unsupervised contact with children[70] and there is a negligible risk of inadvertent contact with children if work is required during business hours.[71] This may be so but the Working with Children Check Guidelines (July 2024) specifically prohibit me from considering the impact of an exclusion or prohibition on the applicant, the nature of the applicant's role and the applicant's value to the community.[72] The reality is that working with children checks are transferrable between roles and there is no ability to place conditions on them[73] to reduce access and risk to children.
2. I reject the submission of the applicant that his particular work requirements can be assessed objectively as lower risk than situations where a working with children check is required for vocations such as teaching, childcare and other inherent positions of trust.[74] If I grant him a working with children check, assuming he has the appropriate qualifications, he can work in any role with children, including positions of trust.
3. On balance, considering the totality of all the evidence and weighting the assessable information, I am reasonably satisfied that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I acknowledge that it is not likely that the applicant will behave in the way he has been accused of in the past, however, even if the risk is minimal or unlikely, the gravity of harm to any victim will be high. Working with children is a privilege and not a right. Given there is a reasonable suspicion of past sexual abuse against a child, the best interests of children in this case is that the applicant be prohibited from working with children.
4. I consider that the respondent's decision is the correct and preferrable decision and ought to be affirmed.
5. In my view, affirming the respondent's decision meets the objects of the CSPP Act by minimising the risk to children, having consideration to the paramount consideration being the best interests of children and having regard to their safety and protection.
6. I consider that if the applicant were permitted to work with children this would not ensure their adequate protection.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 11.

[2] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 10.

[3] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 35.

[4] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 33; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 23.

[5] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 27.

[6] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 31.

[7] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 28; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 41.

[8] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 34.

[9] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 29.

[10] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 25.

[11] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 57 to 83.

[12] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 120 to 130.

[13] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 60.

[14] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 65.

[15] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 64.

[16] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 64.

[17] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 67.

[18] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 71.

[19] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 71.

[20] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 74.

[21] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 74.

[22] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 76.

[23] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 121.

[24] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 67.

[25] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 68 and 116.

[26] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 68.

[27] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 69.

[28] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 73

[29] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 64 and 67.

[30] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 79.

[31] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 64.

[32] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 66

[33] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 67.

[34] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 69.

[35] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 80.

[36] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 81.

[37] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 83.

[38] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 126.

[39] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 128 and 129.

[40] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 49.

[41] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 76.

[42] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 17.

[43] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 18.

[44] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 21.

[45] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 19.

[46] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 55.

[47] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 50.

[48] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 15.

[49] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 159.

[50] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 159.

[51] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 155.

[52] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 160.

[53] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 160.

[54] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 22.

[55] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 31.

[56] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 47.

[57] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 17; GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38.

[58] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 48.

[59] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 60.

[60] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 17; GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38.

[61] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 5 to 9.

[62] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[63] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 65.

[64] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 163

[65] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 30.

[66] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 2.

[67] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 17; GJC v Department of Human Services [2020] SACAT 38.

[68] Outline of argument by the respondent, dated 11 February 2025, paragraph 5.

[69] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 4.

[70] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 33.

[71] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 34.

[72] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 155.

[73] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 155.

[74] Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 28 January 2025, paragraph 35.