BGO v The Children's Guardian

[2015] NSWCATAD 19

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

BGO v The Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 19

Hearing dates:

29 January 2015

Decision date:

17 February 2015

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

Hon G Mullane ADCJ, Principal Member

Decision:

1) The Applicant’s Application for an Enabling Order is refused.

2) Broadcasting or publication of the name or address or other details that identify the Applicant or any child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.

3) Otherwise the Application filed 11 April 2014 is dismissed.

Catchwords:

Application for an Enabling Order – (Conviction for indecent dealing with a child) – refused.

Legislation Cited:

Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012; Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997; Adoption Act 2000;
Crimes Act 1900.

Cases Cited:

Commission for Children and Young People –v- V [2002] NSWSC 949

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

BJO (Applicant)
The Children's Guardian (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
G Moore (Respondent)

Solicitors:
J Worthington (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s):

1410182

Publication restriction:

Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – restriction on publication of information that will identify the applicant, any victims, witnesses, or evidence given and received in the Tribunal or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION

1. In December 1986 when the Applicant was 24 years of age, in Queensland he indecently assaulted an 8 year old girl. He was subsequently convicted by the Supreme Court of Queensland on 13 May 1987 and sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour. On Appeal to the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, on 17 August 1987 the sentence was set aside and a sentence of 18 months imprisonment was substituted.

2. On 10 February 2014 the Applicant applied to the Office of the Children's Guardian in New South Wales for a Working with Children Check Clearance. By letter dated 21 March 2014 the Children's Guardian notified the Applicant that because of his conviction in Queensland in 1987 his Application for a Check Clearance was refused.

3. On 11 April 2014 the Applicant filed his Application in the Tribunal seeking an Enabling Order under s.28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012.

THE EVIDENCE

4. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:

1. Application filed 11 April 2014;

2. The statement of the Applicant filed 28 October 2014;

3. The statement by Mental Health Therapist Irene Branford filed on 28 October 2014;

4. Witness statement of Leonie Ford filed 28 October 2014;

5. Documents received by the Tribunal from the Queensland Police Service received by the Tribunal on 3 November 2014;

6. Documents received by the Tribunal from the Queensland Department of Communities (Child Safety and Disability Services) on 7 November 2014;

7. Indexed and tabulated bundle of documents filed by the Children's Guardian under section 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 in the Tribunal on 18 November 2014;

8. Forensic Psychological Risk Assessment Report by Ms Caroline Hare, Forensic Psychologist, and dated 1 December 2014.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

5. Section 4 of the Act provides that:

“The safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration in the operation of this Act.”

6. Section 6 of the Act provides that a person who is an authorised carer of a child is engaged in “child-related work” for purposes of the Act.

7. Section 8 requires that a worker must not engage in child-related work unless the worker holds a “Working with Children Check Clearance” of a class applicable to the work or there is a current application by the worker to the Children's Guardian for a clearance of a class applicable to that work. There is also provision for an “interim bar”.

8. Section 9 provides that an employer must not commence employing or continue to employ a worker in child-related work if the employer knows or has reasonable cause to believe that worker is subject to an interim bar or is not the holder of a Working with Children Check Clearance that authorises that work and there is no current application by the worker to the Children's Guardian for a clearance of a class applicable to that work.

9. Section 11 of the Act applies to any person who submits an application to adopt a child under the Adoption Act, 2000. It provides in ss.11(2) that the person assessing the application under that Act may request the application for adoption be screened by the Children's Guardian as if the person were an Applicant for a Working with Children Check Clearance of any class. Subsection 11(3) requires the Children's Guardian to treat such a request as if the person had applied for a clearance for child-related work.

10. Section 12 provides that there are two classes of Working with Children Check Clearances which are:

Volunteer – authorising workers to engage in unpaid child-related work;

and

Non-volunteer – authorising workers to engage in paid and unpaid child-related work.

11. Section 13 provides for applications to be made to the Children's Guardian for a Working with Children Check Clearance.

12. Subsection 18(1) of the Act prohibits the Children's Guardian from granting a Working with Children Check Clearance to a person who is a disqualified person and provides that one category of disqualified persons is “a person convicted before, on or after the commencement of this section of an offence specified in Schedule 2, if the offence was committed as an adult”.

13. The Applicant was aged 24 at the time of the offence and therefore an adult.

14. On the evidence the offence was that while baby-sitting the 8 year old child who was a friend of his 2 nieces, he entered the bedroom where the 8 year old and his two younger nieces were sleeping. One of the nieces was sharing a bed with the 8 year old. He sexually assaulted the victim by “rubbing his hand on her vagina and by inserting his finger in her vagina.”

15. The Judge who heard the trial found that:

“The effect of your [BGO’s] unlawful and indecent dealing with the child caused the hymen in one part to be ruptured.”

16. One of the offences listed in Schedule 2 is an offence under s.61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That provision provides:

“Any person who assaults another person and, at the time of, or immediately before or after, the assault, commits an act of indecency on or in the presence of the other person, is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.”

17. The offence of which the Applicant was convicted constituted an indecent assault under s.61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Accordingly, the offence is a disqualifying offence, the Applicant is a disqualified person and s.18 prohibits the Children's Guardian from granting the Applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance.

APPLICATION FOR AN ENABLING ORDER

Section 28 of the Act provides:

(1) The Tribunal may, on the application of a disqualified person, make an order declaring that the person is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of this Act in respect of an offence specified in the order (an enabling order). Any such order has effect according to its tenor.

(2) The Tribunal may, on the application of a person who is not eligible to apply for a clearance because the person has been previously refused a clearance, make an order declaring that the person is to be treated as a person who is eligible to apply for a clearance (an enabling order). Any such order has effect according to its tenor.

(3) A disqualified person may make an application under this section only if:

(a) the person has been refused a working with children check clearance, or

(b) the person’s clearance has been cancelled, because the person is a disqualified person.

(4) The Commission is to be a party to any proceedings for an order under this section and may make submissions in opposition to or support of the making of the order.

(5) An applicant must fully disclose to the Tribunal any matters relevant to the application.

(6) If the Tribunal makes an enabling order, the Tribunal may order the Commission to revoke an interim bar or to grant the person a clearance.

(7) In any proceedings where an enabling order is sought, it is to be presumed, unless the applicant proves to the contrary, that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.

(8) An enabling order may not be made subject to conditions.

(9) An appeal lies on a question of law to the Supreme Court by any party to the proceedings.

18. Section 30 of the Act provides as follows:

(1) The Tribunal must consider the following in determining an application under this Part:

(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 Commission considers necessary.

(2) On an application under section 28 or 29, the Tribunal may, by order, stay the operation of a determination by the Commission under this Act relating to the applicant pending the determination of the matter.

Note. Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 enables a decision the subject of an application under section 27 of this Act to be stayed by the Tribunal.

(3) Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 does not apply in respect of a decision of the Tribunal under this Part.

SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT IS A DISQUALIFIED PERSON

19. The conduct was as described earlier. The victim was only 8 years of age and the Applicant had been entrusted with the care of the victim and the other two girls. The offence was a serious offence because of the nature of the offence, his position of trust and responsibility, the vulnerability of the victim and also the maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment for the offence in NSW.

THE PERIOD OF TIME SINCE THE OFFENCE AND THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT SINCE THE OFFENCE OCCURRED

20. It is 28 years since the offence and in that period the Applicant has not been convicted or charged with any offence. He commenced cohabiting with his first wife in about 1984. They were married in 1988 and separated in 1999 or 2000 and were subsequently divorced. There were no children of that marriage.

21. He commenced cohabiting with his present wife in about 2000/2001. They have a daughter born on 9 December 2002 who is currently 12 years of age. They were still cohabiting on 14 October 2014 when his wife provided a supporting statement in the proceedings.

22. His wife says that she first met the Applicant in September 1997 and he was a very shy and reserved man who “kept to himself”. She worked with him and did not know him well until about 2000. Her evidence is that the Applicant is “a devoted and good Dad” to his daughter. She says he is still “very reserved about talking about his early life”. She said that he did not tell her much about his early life until August 2011. She said that when she found out he had a “child related conviction” she gave it a lot of thought. She said:

“As a victim of child abuse myself I am intensely aware and always watchful of signs of inappropriate behaviour in those around me. I have never seen [Applicant] behave in an inappropriate manner. In fact, he had always taken pains to ensure that he wasn’t around children without another adult present.”

23. His wife has been a cub scout leader for 20 years. He has never attended any camp or any organised activity of the cubs. He and their daughter attend and his wife also works as a volunteer organising and running children’s camps. The Applicant has never attended any of those. The wife says that in the whole time she has known him he has not worked with children but he has worked with adults, especially the elderly, “with whom he has a great rapport”. She says that she cannot reconcile “that person” with the person she knows.

24. The Applicant’s daughter has Asperger’s Syndrome and pain intolerance. Her mother says: “She could not keep a secret if her life depended upon it”. She says that their daughter: “has a good relationship with her Dad and loves him dearly”.

25. The Applicant left school and home when he was about 14 or 15 years of age. The issues that preceded that were that he was sexually abused by his grandfather when he was 6 years of age and he was also having difficulties relating to his mother. He was abusing drugs and alcohol and had been doing so since he was 13. He said that his father was an alcoholic and extremely violent towards his mother when he was drunk.

26. The other issue for him was that when he told his parents about his grandfather’s abuse, “I was called a liar and given a hiding by my father”. His parents then sent him to a psychiatrist in Manly and he was subsequently sexually abused by the psychiatrist on each of the four occasions that he saw him. He did not disclose that to his parents.

27. He was subsequently sexually abused when at high school by a school caretaker on about 10 occasions.

28. After he left home he moved in with his sister who was three years older than him and living in Manly with her boyfriend and two daughters. He continued using alcohol and other drugs including marijuana and acid. He said in his statement:

“I was either drunk or high on drugs just about every day. The only time I wasn’t affected was when I had no money left. I would often wake up in strange places and not know how I got there and would have no memory of the events of the night before.”

29. He obtained work from time to time until he was 19 years of age, including working for two years on the Manly Ferries. He moved to live with his sister, her husband and his two nieces in Toowoomba in Queensland in 1980 or 1981. He moved out when his sister alleged that he had inappropriately touched his two nieces. He was subsequently charged in 1987 in relation to these incidents when he was charged in relation to the disqualifying offence. The Police laid another six charges against him at the time of laying the charge in respect of the disqualifying offence. When he was convicted on 13 May 1987 of the disqualifying offence, the Police subsequently offered no evidence on the other six charges.

30. His evidence is that when he was arrested in early 1987 for the disqualifying offence, he denied the offence and still maintains his innocence. He says that after he met his first wife, he ceased drug and alcohol abuse and since his release from prison in March 1988, he says that he has not abused drugs or alcohol.

31. After his release from prison, he obtained employment with the Ballina Ex-Servicemen’s Community Care. He worked for them for six years as a Cleaner/Activities Person. In August 1994 he moved from Ballina to Newcastle to help his mother look after his nephew following the death of the nephew’s mother in a car accident. He then commenced employment at Camp Breakaway in both a paid and voluntary capacity to February 1995. He continued in that employment until November 2011. He was also employed with All Care Nursing from 1998 as an Assistant in Nursing and he remained employed with them until he was refused a Check Clearance.

32. His evidence is that he made his Application because he wanted to be more involved in his daughter’s life, such as volunteering at her school or sporting activities, such as Little Athletics. In addition, All Care Nursing have indicated their willingness to restore his employment if he is successful in the proceedings.

33. He says in his statement:

“Since my release from prison in 1988 I have taken active steps to ensure I am never alone with children. I have no sexual attraction towards children but accept the fact that I do have a conviction which would suggest otherwise.”

THE AGE OF THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE

34. The Applicant was 24 at the time of the offence.

THE AGE OF THE VICTIM OF THE OFFENCE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE AND ANY MATTERS RELATING TO THE VULNERABILITY OF THE VICTIM

35. The victim was 8 years of age. The victim was vulnerable because of her age and also because she had been entrusted to the care of the Applicant while her family were elsewhere.

THE DIFFERENCE IN AGE BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE APPLICANT AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP (IF ANY)

36. The victim was 16 years younger than the Applicant at the time of the offence.

37. The victim was not related to the Applicant, but was a friend of his nieces who was staying with them in the home where the Applicant also stayed.

WHETHER THE APPLICANT KNEW OR COULD REASONABLY HAVE KNOWN THAT THE VICTIM WAS A CHILD

38. The Applicant knew the victim was a child.

THE APPLICANT’S PRESENT AGE

39. The Applicant is 52 years of age.

THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE APPLICANT’S TOTAL CRIMINAL RECORD AND HIS CONDUCT SINCE THE OFFENCES OCCURRED

40. The Applicant has no criminal record since the disqualifying offence. However, while he was a juvenile he had convictions in the Children's Court. In 1978 he was convicted for 5 counts of break, enter and steal. In 1980 he was convicted of 1 count of malicious injury and 1 of serious affront or alarm.

41. He was placed on probation for 18 months in relation to the break, enter and steal counts and fined $75 in respect of each of the other offences.

42. After the Applicant was arrested for the disqualifying offence, disclosures were made by his two nieces in March 1987 that they had been sexually assaulted by the Applicant. It was alleged that it happened about four years previously when the girls would have been about 6 years of age and 5 years of age.

43. The Police laid various alternative charges, but when the Applicant was convicted of the disqualifying offence and was still denying guilt in relation to the other alleged offences, the Police chose to offer no evidence in respect of those offences.

44. In his statement the Applicant says in relation to the alleged sexually assaults of his two nieces, “I have no recollection of doing anything inappropriate to either of my nieces at any time”.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY REPETITION BY THE APPLICANT OF THE OFFENCE OR CONDUCT AND THE IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF ANY SUCH REPETITION

45. The impact of any such conduct on a child would be traumatic.

46. Since 2008 the Applicant has been attending on an Accredited Medical Mental Health Therapist for counselling. The counselling has not been to address any risk that he might re-offend. He still denies he committed the disqualifying offence. The Counsellor, Ms Irene Branford, said in her report:

“BGO was referred to me by Dr. John Phillips in February this year with a diagnosis of long term dysphoria which is a state of unease, general depression, anxiety, basically feeling miserable. BGO had been operating in a dysphoric state for a long time and had started to think things like "what's the point?" "will this ever end?". This mood disturbance for BGO is related to his conviction in May, 1987 for the alleged sexual abuse of his niece's friend and subsequent custodial sentence. I have seen BGO on a fortnightly basis .since being referred and he has remained committed to working towards improving his emotional state. We have spoken at length about the allegations brought against him BGO maintains his innocence in relation to these charges.”

47. The Counsellor said that she had been assured by the Applicant’s second wife that the Applicant has not abused alcohol during the time they have known each other.

48. The Counsellor reported on the protective factors that the Applicant had put in place. She reported:

“BGO has lived his life since his prison sentence as though he had committed this crime. By this I mean that he has ensured that work choices have only been to work with adults. Further he has ensured that he has not, as far as possible, been around children unless he has his wife, ..., or other adults with him. He has stayed away from the scouting activities that (his wife) is involved with and he has even not attended certain family child-minding opportunities. This has also meant that he has missed out on some activities that his own daughter has been involved with to both her sadness and BGO's. All this adds to BGO’s state of dysphoria as it means he cannot live a normal life nor participate in his daughter’s life as he wishes to.”

49. The Counsellor reported that the Applicant’s wife is very much supportive of him as are some of their friends. Although the Counsellor has no professional qualifications or expertise in relation to the investigation of child sexual abuse or treatment of offenders, she volunteered in her report that based on her consultations with him over the last year and the involvement of his wife in that process, she strongly believes:

“… that he does not pose a risk to children. He regularly attends therapy appointments, his story never changes, he doggedly lives by the rules that have been inflicted upon him by his conviction and imprisonment as stated previously in this report.”

50. The Applicant through his solicitors obtained a forensic psychological report from Ms Caroline Hare. She is a member of the firm of Jennings, Seidler & Collins. Her relevant qualifications and experience are set out in the schedule to her report. No issue was taken as to her expertise for assessing the risk the Applicant poses to children. The report is more than 20 pages. She interviewed the Applicant and questioned him extensively and read numerous documents related to the proceedings and since.

51. By the time of Ms Hare’s report in December, he had decided that in order to avoid his daughter being impacted by the investigation for this hearing, he would out and live with a friend. He said that he was very distressed on the day he moved out and attempted suicide on the day he left the home. Since he has been living with his friend, he has spoken with his wife and daughter daily by telephone and engaged in regular visits to them, including staying over at the family home and caring for his daughter while his wife is completing night shift.

52. He told Ms Hare that he and his wife are not presently engaging in physical intimacy and his wife would probably describe them as “on a break”. He said he was unsure whether they would reconcile in the future, but he said that they had discussed going on a cruise together in December 2014. When he was asked what his own thoughts were about the current state of the marriage, he said: “I don’t know what to think”. But he also said his wife wants to be part of his life in the future.

53. Ms Hare carried out a psychological assessment and a psychometric assessment. She used actuarial risk assessment methods including the Static 99. She then looked at the particular matters that raised the risk of sexually re-offending which were:

“a. Breach of trust as the victim was under his care at the time of the offence;

b. Denial of the sexual offence, leading to limited ability to explore motivation, offence pathway, and safety planning;

c. Problems with stress and coping, leading to maladaptive (avoidant) coping mechanisms;

d. Problems resulting from childhood physical and sexual abuse, including insecure style of attachment problems with achieving emotional intimacy within intimate relationships, and reluctance to establish trusting and open non-intimate relationships;

e. Past problems with substance misuse;

f. Problems with employment;

g. Suicidal ideation as a response to emotional crises and feelings of worthlessness.”

as well as the protective factors that relate to the Applicant’s situation which are:

"a. Limited history of antisociality confined to one additional offence for drink driving;

b. Healthy sexual interests;

c. Absence of psychopathic personality traits;

d. Preference for constructive occupation;

e. Openness to change, including current engagement with a mental health professional.”

54. She then particularly took into account the fact that the Applicant has had 26 years without conviction or charge since the disqualifying offence.

55. She concluded that the Applicant is of low-moderate risk of re-offending. She recommended that a final decision regarding his Application should be deferred for a period of 12 months so that he could access intervention to focus on developing his skills in the following areas:

1. development of adaptive coping skills;

2. development of emotional intimacy skills, including enhancement of ability to trust others and engage in open communication to also assist managing risk effectively;

3. development of his understanding of factors that place him at increased risk of engaging in boundary violations/sexual recidivism, and formulation of a specific safety plan.

56. As a result of the recommendation, the Applicant applied for an adjournment of the hearing for 12 months in order to undertake the intervention and obtain a further report. The application for an adjournment was refused.

57. The question to be decided under s.28 of the Act is whether the Applicant discharged the onus on him under ss.28(7) to overcome the presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children.

58. A literal interpretation of ss.28(7), requiring the Applicant to prove that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children, is not what is intended by the legislature because logically it is impossible to prove any adult does not pose some risk to the safety of children.

59. In Commission For Children and Young People –v- V [2002] NSWSC 949 Young CJ in Eq in considering s9(8) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, 1998, which required the Tribunal in similar proceedings under that legislation “not to make an order under this section unless it considers that the person the subject of the proposed order does not pose a risk to the safety of children”. He held regarding the construction of the section:

“One must not approach the matter on the basis that the sole criterion is to protect children from any possibility of abuse from a person who has been convicted of a serious sex offence”. [At par 41] and [at par 42]

“One does not define risk as meaning minimal risk. One would in any case as Mr Singleton has submitted, exclude fanciful or theoretical risk but what one is looking for is whether, in all the circumstances, there is a real and appreciable risk in the sense of a risk that is greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. One, however, must link the ‘risk’ with the words that follow, namely, ‘to the safety of children’.

ANY INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT IN, OR IN RELATION TO, THE APPLICATION

60. There is no further relevant information of this type.

ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT THE CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN CONSIDERS NECESSARY

61. There are no other such matters.

CONCLUSIONS

62. Under subsec 28(7) there is a presumption in these proceedings that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. The onus on the applicant to displace that presumption.

63. Under Subsection 28(5) the Applicant is required to fully disclose to the Tribunal matters relevant to the application. There is evidence of allegations of sexual abuse of his 2 nieces in about 1982 or 1983 made against the applicant by his 2 nieces in late 1986 or early 1987, leading to charges by the police that were not preceded with when the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for the disqualifying offence. The applicant has not disclosed to the tribunal matters relevant to the enabling application, namely the details of the allegations made by the nieces, any records of the police or other child protection or child welfare authorities (including Toowoomba “JAB”) of interviews of the children, the Applicant or any others about the alleged sexual assaults, his responses to such details and statements now, what other evidence the police or child protection or child welfare authorities had, the records of the medical examinations of the children by Dr Lockwood, and what evidence there was available to defend such allegations.

64. The applicant in para 11 of his statement of 8 October 2014 refers to those allegations and says “I have no recollection of doing anything inappropriate to either of my nieces at any time”. He did not there deny the allegations. Dr hare said in her report that when she interviewed him, the applicant “denied any recall of inappropriate behaviour….. between himself and his nieces during this period, though he acknowledged that he was frequently heavily intoxicated whilst he was residing with them.” Again, this was not a denial, although he denied the allegations to the police in 1987 and in other statements to MS Hare in the same interview.

65. In the same interview the applicant told Ms Hare that from when he was 15 he was consuming alcohol daily. He said that he experienced blackouts as a consequence of his abuse of alcohol. Ms Hare reported “He apparently continued to consume alcohol at an elevated level until his imprisonment in 1987”. He told her he “didn’t like who [he] was when [he] was drunk”.

66. Because of those matters relating to the complaints by his nieces and because of the assessment of Ms Hare that the Applicant presents a low-moderate risk of re-offending, the Applicant has not established that he does not pose a real risk to the safety of children.

67. Accordingly, the Application should be refused.

68. There should be an Order restricting publication of details which might identify the Applicant or any child referred to in the reasons.

ORDERS

69. The Orders of the Tribunal therefore are:

1. The Applicant’s Application for an Enabling Order is refused.

2. Broadcasting or publication of the name or address or other details that identify the Applicant or any child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.

3. Otherwise the Application filed 11 April 2014 is dismissed.

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.

Registrar

Amendments

23 February 2015 - Names were anonymised

Decision last updated: 23 February 2015