BJS v Children's Guardian

[2015] NSWCATAD 47

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	BJS v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 47
Hearing dates:	28 October and 28 November 2014
Decision date:	19 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Higgins, Principal Member
Decision:	1. Declare that the applicant not be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the two offences of sexual assault (unlawful and indecent assault), contrary to the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, of which he was convicted on 25 January 2002. 2. Pursuant to subs 28(6) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the respondent is to grant the applicant with a working with children clearance
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – child protection – application for an enabling order to be granted a working with children check clearance – applicant a disqualified person – conviction of a disqualifying offence of sexual assault (unlawful and indecent assault) contrary to the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899 – statutory presumption the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children – onus on applicant to rebut the statutory presumption – onus discharged
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (repealed) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Cases Cited:	Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 11 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
Texts Cited:	BJS (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	BJS (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Moore (Respondent) Solicitors: BJS (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1410327
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the name of the applicant and the name of the any other person that would identify the name of the applicant is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the Tribunal.

reasons for decision

1. The applicant, is a ‘disqualified person’ under subsection 18(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (the Act) and seeks an enabling order, pursuant to section 28 of that Act, declaring that he not be treated as a ‘disqualified person’ so that he can be granted a working with children check clearance under the Act. The applicant is an athlete and is seeking a clearance so that he can coach other young prospective athletes in his chosen sport.

2. The applicant is a ‘disqualified person’ by reason of having been charged and found guilty, on 25 January 2002, of two offences of sexual assault (i.e. unlawful and indecent assault), pursuant to paragraph 337(1)(a) of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899: see clause 1(1)(e) and (z) of Schedule 2 of the Act. The applicant was fined $2,000.

3. The applicant’s application was heard on 28 October and 28 November 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing on 28 November 2014, I reserved my decision. I have now considered all the material before the Tribunal and for the reasons set out below I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged his onus and it is appropriate to make the orders sought.

The evidence

4. The applicant filed detailed written submissions and gave oral evidence at the hearing and was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent.

5. The applicant also relied on a report of Dr Paul Pusey, a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. Dr Pusey conducted a risk assessment of the applicant in August 2014. His report was tendered into evidence on the first day of hearing and he gave oral evidence on this day and was cross-examined. Dr Pusey conducted a further assessment of the applicant on 11 November 2014. The further assessment was conducted, so that Dr Pusey could review all the material that was before the Tribunal.

6. Dr Pusey gave further oral evidence and was cross-examined on the adjourned hearing date.

7. The applicant also tendered into evidence three references and an undated letter from a friend who said he was residing with the applicant at the time a further incident was reported to police in 2003. Included in the references was a reference of the applicant’s current partner, who gave oral evidence and was cross-examined on the adjourned hearing date.

8. The respondent relied on a large bundle of documents and some additional material (i.e. single documents) obtained in the course of enquiries her office had made about the applicant. This included material provided by the Queensland Police and the Queensland District Court in regard to the applicant’s disqualifying offence and documents from the NSW District Court in regard to sexual assault charges arising from an incident in 2001. I have dealt with this in more detail below.

Working with Children legislative scheme

9. The Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (the Act) makes provision for the regulation of those persons who can engage in, or continue to engage in child-related work: see section 3, which sets out the objects of the Act.

10. The term ‘child-relate work’ is broadly defined in section 6 of the Act. While it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the person seeking a working with children check clearance was engaged in, or proposes to engage in ‘child-related work’, I note that work as a coach, as a team manager, an assistant coach, or assistant team manager for a sport, or activity for children is prescribed as child-related work for the purpose of the Act: see subsection 6(2)(d) of the Act and subclause 7(2) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013.

11. The word ‘children’ is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act to mean persons under the age of 18 years. Consequently, the word ‘child’ has the same meaning.

12. It is an offence for a person to engage in ‘child-related work’, unless (a) the person holds the relevant working with children check clearance, or (b) there is a current application, by the person, to the Children’s Guardian for the relevant working with children check clearance: see subsection 8(1) of the Act. It is also an offence for an employer to employ, or continue to employ a person in ‘child related work’ where the employer knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that the person is not the holder of a relevant working with children check clearance, or there is no current application by the person for such a clearance.

13. Applications for a clearance are made to the respondent (see section 13 of the Act). Where the person seeking a clearance is a ‘disqualified person’, subsection 18(1) of the Act 18(1) provides that the respondent must refuse that application.

14. The meaning of a ‘disqualified person’ is contained in paragraphs 18(1)(a) and (b) of the Act as follows:

18 Determination of applications for clearances

(1) The Children’s Guardian must not grant a working with children check clearance to the following persons (disqualified persons):

(a) 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,

(b) a person against whom proceedings for any such offence have been commenced, if the offence was committed as an adult, pending determination of the proceedings for the offence

15. The word ‘conviction’ is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act to include ‘a finding that the charge for an offence is proven, or that a person is guilty of an offence, even though the court does not proceed to a conviction.’

16. There is no dispute that the offences of which the applicant was found guilty in 2002 are offences specified in Schedule 2 of the Act and that the Court’s finding of guilt of these offences makes the applicant a ‘disqualified person,’

17. As I have mentioned, subsection 28(1) of the Act makes provision for a ‘disqualified person’ to make an application to the Tribunal for an enabling order, upon the refusal of their applicant for a clearance by the respondent.

18. Where an application for an enabling order is made, section 28 provides as follows:

28 Orders relating to disqualified and ineligible persons

(1) …

…

(4) The Children’s Guardian 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 Children’s Guardian 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) …

19. The meaning of the word ‘risk’ was considered, by his Honour Young CJ in Eq, in Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949. At [42], His Honour made the following remarks in regard to the word ‘risk’ as it appeared in the former Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998:

‘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 word "risk" with the words that follow, namely, "to the safety of children.’

20. These remarks have been accepted to equally apply to the word ‘risk’ as it appears in the 2012 Act.

21. Section 30 sets out how an application under section 28 is to be determined by the Tribunal. It is in the following terms:

30 Determination of applications and other matters

(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 Children’s Guardian considers necessary.

(2) …

22. 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 the Act.

23. Finally, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is protective and not punitive in nature; see Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 11 per Young JA at [61]. That is, the object of the Act is not to impose additional punishment on a disqualified person but to eliminate possible risks to the safety of children.

Consideration

24. As I have noted, the main issue is whether the applicant has discharged his onus to rebut the presumption that he poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Set out below is the evidence and my findings in regard to the factors set out in subsection 30(1) of the Act

Seriousness of the offences that caused the refusal of the applicant’s application for a clearance

25. The disqualifying offences occurred on the evening and early morning of 5 November 2000. The applicant was residing in Queensland in an apartment together with another male (flatmate). The applicant explained that his flatmate organised for the sister of one of his Sydney work colleague to come to the Gold Coast and party with him. The sister came together with another female friend.

26. The applicant explained that at approximately 7:00pm of the evening before the alleged incident they all started drinking in the apartment where he was living. At approximately 10:00pm they all ventured out to a nightclub together. They indulged in shots and drinking games. The applicant said he and his flatmate were buying the drinks for the girls that evening. He said at approximately 2:00am, while they were at the nightclub the girls were intoxicated and became disrespectful towards them. He said they were dancing with other males in a very provocative manner and generally ignoring them. The applicant said he confronted the girls and expressed his disappointment and said his flatmate had spent a heap of money buying them drinks and the least they could do was to show him some respect.

27. The applicant said he left the club and went home to bed. He said, at approximately 7:00am that morning, he was woken when the girls and his flatmate returned home. The applicant said he went to the bedroom where the two girls were staying to ensure they did not bring anyone else back with them. He said his flatmate was present in the room. The applicant said the next thing he knew was that at about 11:00am that morning, he was woken by the police knocking on his door and wishing to question him about an incident that took place that morning. The applicant was charged with three offences, two offences of unlawful and indecent assault and one offence of rape.

28. The police fact sheet states that the girls complained to the local police. They alleged they returned to the unit at about 5:30am that morning. One of the girls (complainant 1) alleged that soon after she had arrived back to the unit and while she was alone in her bedroom about to change into her night attire the applicant entered the room. She alleged that the applicant sat on her bed and while she was talking to him he grabbed the sheet from her chest and pulled it down past her waist before reaching out and grabbing between her legs. The complainant stated that she pushed the applicant’s hand away. She also alleged that the applicant grabbed her breasts without invitation to which she again pushed his hand away. She said she was able to get out of the bedroom when her friend entered to get into her bed.

29. The indecent sexual assault charges were laid against the applicant in regard to this complaint.

30. The police fact sheet also states that the other girl (complainant 2) alleged that she was asleep in her bed when she was awoken to the accused being over her. She alleged that he had raped her.

31. The police fact sheet goes on to state that when police attended the applicant’s unit he stated he had been out drinking heavily the previous night and vaguely recalled walking home and going to sleep. He is recorded to have said that he remembered waking up to answer the door to the police and on being questioned he said he vaguely recalled the altercation at the nightclub with the complainants.

32. The police fact sheet records the girls being aged 22 and 18 years of age respectively.

33. In his written submissions, the applicant said he pleaded guilty to the indecent assault charges as the prosecution had offered to drop the rape charge if he entered such a plea and the prosecution also undertook not to oppose the applicant’s application for a no conviction recorded outcome.

34. As I understand it, the applicant has at all times denied that he raped complainant 2. I note, the evidence was that the semen tested from complainant 2 was not that of the applicant.

35. In sentencing the applicant, the sentencing Judge said the following:

‘…, [the] circumstances put before me indicate that you committed a relatively minor example of a serious and prevalent offence. You took advantage of the intoxication and, I would assume, severe intoxication of two young women.

I am satisfied that you succumbed to a temptation while intoxicated and because you were intoxicated.

I am satisfied that your behaviour was uncharacteristic of you.

I take into account the fact that you have voluntarily reduced your drinking since your offence to remove any chance of repetition of your conduct.

It seems to me that a fine is appropriate in your case. You obviously have the means to pay a fine.

…’

36. In his oral evidence, the applicant denied he committed any act of indecency on complainant 1, but accepted he had pleaded guilty to the offence. He also acknowledged that the conduct was unlawful.

37. In my view, the offences when considered in isolation, fall at the lower end of seriousness of such offences.

The period of time since that offence occurred and the conduct of the applicant since that time

38. It is 14 years since the applicant committed the disqualifying offences.

39. In 2001 and 2003 police received further complaints alleging the applicant had committed an offence of sexual assault.

40. The first incident was alleged to have occurred on 6 July 2001. The applicant was charged with this offence on 24 November 2001. The matter went to trial and the applicant was found not guilty of the offence charged. However, the circumstances giving rise to the charges remain of concern as the victim was a 21 year old citizen of the USA, who had come to Australia to study at an Australian University.

41. The applicant had met the victim, in the US, about a year previously. The victim arrived in Sydney, on 5 July 2001. The applicant met the victim at the airport and drove her to his unit within the city. The victim was going to stay with the applicant for a number of days and he was going to show her around Sydney prior to driving her to Newcastle where she had enrolled at the university.

42. On the evening of 6 July 2001, the victim and the applicant went out for the evening. They consumed an amount of alcohol at clubs. The victim said she stopped drinking, however the applicant continued to consume alcohol. The victim said she wanted to go home so they returned to the applicant’s unit. The victim said she went to bed in a separate bedroom in the applicant’s unit. The victim alleged that in the early hours of the following morning, she was woken when the applicant got into her bed. It was at this time that the victim alleged he had raped her.

43. In his oral evidence, the applicant acknowledged he had met the victim in the US. He said he corresponded with her once he had returned to Australia. He explained that he gave evidence at the criminal trial and that he was not intoxicated. He said he thought there was a romantic relationship between them and acknowledged that he had penetrated her, but it was very short and he stopped when the she objected.

44. In regard to the other incident it is alleged to have occurred on 3 March 2003. The applicant had met the victim of this incident about two years previously in Fiji. Upon returning to Australia, the victim and the applicant commenced a relationship as girlfriend and boyfriend. They did not see each other regularly and in March 2003 the victim came to Sydney, from Brisbane, to have some surgery. On the evening of 3 March 2003, the victim, the applicant and two other persons went into the city for dinner. During the evening they consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. They returned to the applicant’s unit about 12:30am and sat in the lounge room watching television. The witnesses went to bed and it is alleged that after they went to bed this is when the alleged rape occurred. The victim reported the incident to police the following morning. However, she subsequently retracted the statement she had made and requested no further police investigation to be undertaken in relation to the matter.

38. In his oral evidence the applicant said he had not had any further contact with the victim following that day. He also said he was not intoxicated as alleged. He said he knew this to be the case, as he had a competition the following day and does not drink before such events. Although he did acknowledge that he may have had a little alcohol to drink that evening.

39. In his letter of support, the applicant’s friend said he was present at all times during the alleged assault as he was staying with the applicant, the victim and the other two witnesses. He said that the morning after the night in question, they were all together and in a very good and relaxed mood. He said they had breakfast together and laughed and joked and got on fine. He said he could not believe that there can be any issue of any impropriety by the applicant on this particular day.

40. While no charges were laid against the applicant in regard to the 2003 allegation and the applicant successfully defended the 2001 charges, the respondent contends the circumstances are nevertheless of concern, as they were three separate and distinct incidents where the applicant is alleged to have taken advantage of young women who were in his home. The women in each incident did not know the others and yet three separate complaints were made about being sexually assaulted by the applicant in similar circumstances.

41. The applicant said he no longer drinks alcohol as he did in 2000 to 2003. He also pointed out that there has been no recurrence of reports of this kind since 2003. That is, it is now more than 10 years since any such allegations have been made.

42. He added that even though he continues to deny the allegations made against him, he now makes sure he does not place himself in circumstances where such allegations can be made.

The age of the applicant at the time the offence occurred

50. The applicant was 37 years of age at the time he committed the disqualifying offence. He was aged 38 and 40 at the time the other allegations were made.

The age of the victim at the time the offence was committed and any matters relating to vulnerability of the victim

51. Complainant 1 in the 2000 disqualifying offence was 18 years of age. Complainant 2 was 22 years of age.

52. The complainant of the alleged 2001 offence was 21 years and the complainant in the alleged 2003 incident is unknown, but would appear to have been older than the other complainants.

The difference in age between the victim and the applicant

53. The difference in age between the applicant and the complainant in regard to the disqualifying offence was 19 years. There was a difference of 15 years between the applicant and the other complainant in regard to the incidence that occurred in 2000.

54. In regard to the 2001 sexual assault charge, there was a 19 year difference in the age of the victim and the applicant.

The applicant’s present age

55. The applicant is now 51 years of age.

The seriousness of the applicant’s total criminal record

56. Other than the matters mentioned above, there is no record of the applicant having committed any further offences prior to the 2000 disqualifying offence or subsequent thereto. Nor is there any evidence of the applicant having been the subject to disciplinary proceedings. On the contrary the references provided by the applicant indicate that he is highly regarded.

The likelihood of any repetition by the applicant of the offence of which he was convicted and the impact on children of any such repetition

57. The applicant contended that it was unlikely that he would again be in a position to be accused of matters such as those of which he was convicted in 2000 and those of which he was accused in 2001 and 2003. As I have noted, it is the evidence of the applicant that he no longer consumes alcohol to the extent he did previously. He also said he has settled down in a relationship with a child, to whom he wishes to be a father figure.

58. The evidence of the applicant’s partner was along the same lines. In her oral evidence she said she met the applicant in 2004. She said they met in Beirut when he was competing there. She was 23 years of age at that time. She said they met at a restaurant and in 2006 he helped her to move to Fiji. He came back and forth to see her there and during this time they had a plutonic relationship. However, just before she gave birth to her son, in 2005, they commenced a romantic relationship. She said she moved to Australia in 2011 to live with the applicant in a husband and wife relationship and they have been doing so since that time. She said she is now 33 years of age. She said the applicant does not drink a lot - he has a beer or a wine occasionally, when they go out, or at home when he has been working a lot.

59. In her letter of support, the applicant’s partner explained that the applicant helped her escape war torn Lebanon. He sponsored her to study at the University of South Pacific, in Fiji. She said that although their relationship did not last very long, they remained good friends. She explained that her son was from a previous relationship and the applicant has been nothing but a fantastic father to him. She said that in 2009, they decided to live together in Australia.

60. In his initial report, Dr Pusey, said that in his opinion, based on the combined weight of the evidence provided through the psychometric instruments as well as his clinical interview, the applicant did not present with any current overt mental illness, impulsivity, substance abuse, violence/anger or sexual offending risk which would disqualify him from having or receiving a working with children card. However, as Dr Pusey had not been provided with the material relating to the 2001 and 2003 incidents, this material was provided to him and he conducted a further assessment of the applicant. In his further report Dr Pusey made the following comments:

‘With regards to the sexual assault allegations from 2001 and 2003 as detailed in this information, despite the two allegations which are reported, in my view they do not support the notion that [the applicant] is a sexual recidivist. In both cases, the allegations were tested through the criminal justice system and neither allegation was found to be able to be proven to the extent that a conviction could be recorded. It could be inferred that this simply means that despite the findings of not guilty that the mere fact that these allegations have been made are suggestive of a concerning pattern of behaviour, however the objective evidence before me is that he has not been convicted of any sexually based criminal act following the disqualifying event.

I cannot therefore make a judgment that this additional information would cause me to alter my previous assessment of his recidivism risk.

With regards to the disqualifying event, it is noteworthy that the presiding Judge of the District Court ….described his crime as “a relatively minor example of a serious and prevalent offence”. He additionally reported that it was his belief that [the applicant’s] actions were not the function of a defect of character, indicative of his usual character or behaviour, or due to the influence of symptoms of mental illness but a function of the impairment of his decision making capacity due to significant alcohol intoxication. In my view this supports a finding that he has a low likelihood of the perpetuation of this behaviour, particularly given the efforts he has undertaken to minimise the degree of his consumption of alcohol.

…

My opinion therefore remains unchanged from what I communicated in my previous report but based on the combined weight of the evidence provided through the psychometric instruments as well as his clinical interview that [the applicant] does not present with any current overt mental health, impulsivity, substance abuse, violence/anger or sexual offending risks which would disqualify him from having or receiving a working with children card.’

Any information given by the applicant

61. Other than the matters mentioned above, the applicant did not raise any further matters. As I have mentioned he has relied on a number of references and these are all made in support of him. The respondent did not require any of these referees, other than the applicant’s partner, to be made available for cross-examination. To the extent the references failed to make any mention of the applicant’s disqualifying offence or the charges that have been laid against him, I have given these little weight.

Any other matters the respondent considers necessary

62. It is the respondent’s contention that the applicant has not discharged his onus. The respondent accepts that the applicant’s disqualifying offence is at the lower end of seriousness for offences of this kind, that none of the victims were children, the applicant’s overall criminal conduct is restricted to the 2000 conviction, the applicant is in employment and there is nothing adverse recorded by his employers and he is in a relationship.

63. However, the respondent contended that no weight should be given to the report of Dr Pusey, as he based his opinion on an incorrect statement of the 2001 and 2003 incidents. That is, he based his conclusion on the assumption that neither incident could be proven. The respondent argued that this was an incorrect approach as what had been established was that within seven months of having committed the disqualifying offence there was a further complaint of a similar kind from a young overseas student and then another complaint in 2003.

64. The respondent also argued that the relationship between the applicant and his partner was very recent and that it was difficult to assess his history since the offending conduct, as he has spent a large amount of time overseas.

Conclusions and orders

65. In my opinion, having regard to all the material before the Tribunal, the applicant has discharged his onus. His disqualifying offence was at the less serious end of the scale of such offences and it occurred some 14 years ago.

66. I agree with the respondent that the further reports of conduct of a similar nature in 2001 and 2003 are of concern. However, there is no evidence of any further reports since that time. As I have noted, pursuant to subsection 28(5) of the Act, the applicant is required to fully disclose any matter relevant to this application. While I understand the concerns of the respondent about the limits to which inquiries can be made about the applicant while he resided overseas, there is no material before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has failed to disclose a matter occurring outside of Australia, which the applicant has failed to disclose. The applicant’s absence overseas has primarily been due to him competing internationally in his chosen sport and he has continued to compete internationally up to the date of hearing.

67. I accept the applicant has also made changes to his life, since 2003, in that he seeks to avoid being placed in circumstances similar to those giving rise to his disqualifying offences and the allegations that followed. He has moderated drinking of alcohol and only drinks occasionally and is in a stable relationship.

68. The evidence is that this has been an ongoing relationship for almost 10 years and they have been living as man and wife since 2011. While the applicant travels with his work and his sporting commitments and is often away from home, I note the evidence of the applicant’s partner that they have purchased a home together.

69. Finally, as pointed out by the respondent, the victim of the disqualified offence and the other complainants were all aged 18 years and over. This does not lessen the seriousness of these offences and complaints, however, for the reasons I have stated, I am satisfied on the material before the Tribunal that the applicant has an understanding of what led to these offences and complaints and he has taken steps to ensure he does not reoffend or give cause for such complaints to be made against him.

70. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant has discharged his onus and has rebutted the presumption that he poses a real and appreciable risk to children and on that basis it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make an enabling order.

71. Orders:

1. Declare that the applicant not be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the two offences of sexual assault (unlawful and indecent assault), contrary to the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, of which he was convicted on 25 January 2002.

2. Pursuant to subs 28(6) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the respondent is to grant the applicant with a working with children clearance

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

Decision last updated: 19 March 2015