CVG v Children's Guardian - [2017] NSWCATAD 168

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: CVG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 168
Hearing dates: 4 April 2017
Date of orders: 26 May 2017
Decision date: 26 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Hitter, Senior Member
S Davison, General Member
Decision:
The decision of the Respondent to cancel the Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: BJB v Office of the Children’s Guardian (2014) NSW CATAD 111 at 110
BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 at 32
BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523
BRT v Children’s Guardian (2015) NSW CATAD 272
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CVG (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Giacomo (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00378467, 1610715
Publication restriction: Disclosure of the name of the applicant and the name of any alleged victim or child referred to in the material before the Tribunal is prohibited. Note: the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The Applicant referred to as “CVG” is a man living in regional NSW with his female partner (AB). They have two daughters aged 15 and 18 years. The Applicant suffered a serious injury at work in 2009, and has been unable to work since then.
The Applicant was granted a Working with Children Check (WWCC) clearance in 2014.
In 2015, the Applicant entered a plea of guilty to a domestic violence offence for which he received a Section 10 Bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years. This triggered a risk assessment pursuant to the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (the Act), and the Respondent determined that the Applicant posed a risk to the safety of children and cancelled his WWCC clearance.
The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Respondent opposes the granting of a WWCC clearance.
An order was made under section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting the publication or broadcast of the name of the Applicant without leave of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s WWCC clearance for the reasons set out below.

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Section 27 of the Act provides that a person who has been refused a WWCC can apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review of that decision.
Section 63 (1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) provides that in an application for administrative review, the Tribunal must decide what is the “correct and preferable decision” having regard to the material before it including “any relevant factual material” and “any applicable written or unwritten law”.
The jurisdiction provided by the Act is protective and not punitive in nature (BJB v Office of the Children’s Guardian (2014) NSW CATAD 111 at 110). The safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration: section 4, the Act.
Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent bear the onus of proof in these proceedings (BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 at 32). The Tribunal must determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children having regard to the factors set out in section 30 (1) and section 30 (1A) of the Act.
It is well established that the word “risk” in the Act is construed to mean a risk that is “real and appreciable” in relation to the safety of children and is greater than the risk posed ordinarily by any adult (BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523 and BRT v Children’s Guardian (2015) NSW CATAD 272).
The Applicant has a duty to fully disclose to the Tribunal any matters relevant to this Application pursuant to section 27(4) of the Act.

The material before the Tribunal

The Tribunal was provided with the following material to consider in determining this application:

Applicant’s application dated 1 November 2016.

Section 58 documents filed by the Respondent received 5 December 2016.

Further documents filed by the Respondent received 27 January 2017.

Further documents filed by the Respondent received 15 March 2017.

Further documents filed by the Respondent received 30 March 2017.

Documents and material relating to the Applicant from NSW Police dated 8 February 2017.

Submissions filed on behalf of the Respondent received 29 March 2017.

Letter from the Applicant to Crown Solicitors dated 21 December 2016 with attachments.

Document from the Reportable Conduct Unit, Family and Community Services dated 13 December 2016.

A hearing was held in Dubbo. The Applicant was present and not legally represented. The Applicant did not provide the Tribunal with a written statement but gave oral evidence at the hearing, as did AB, and his two daughters.

The trigger offence

The trigger offence occurred in 2015. The victim was the Applicant’s niece and 16 years old at the time. The Applicant was charged with “Stalk or intimidate to cause fear of physical or mental harm (domestic violence offence)”. The Applicant was also charged with “Intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property domestic violence related”. The Applicant pleaded guilty to these offences and the penalty he received (a Section 10 Bond to be of good behavior for a period of 2 years) has not yet expired. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for a period of 2 years was also made against the Applicant, which identifies the victim and her mother as protected persons. This Order expires in July 2017.

Another complaint

In 2016, NSW Police undertook an investigation of an alleged indecent assault of a 15 year old girl (V2).
V2 was a friend of the Applicant’s youngest daughter and the incident was said to have occurred when V2 was visiting her in the Applicant’s home. V2 alleged that the Applicant approached her from behind and placed his hands on her breasts on the outside of her clothes and then slapped her bottom as she was leaving the room. The Applicant then sent V2 messages through a social media site, which also formed part of the investigation.
The Applicant was interviewed by NSW Police and denied that he had indecently assaulted V2. V2 told Police she did not want to proceed with criminal charges and the investigation was closed. FACS also investigated the complaint because V2 was a child placed in Out of Home Care (OOHC). FACS records show that the matter was considered “substantiated”.
An Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was made against the Applicant for a period of 12 months, which identifies V2 as a protected person.

Foster child placement

In 2014, following a “Kinship Carer Assessment”, a nephew of the Applicant’s partner (AB), an infant at the time, was placed in their care.
In 2015, FACS received a “risk of harm” report raising concerns about the cleanliness and safety of the Applicant’s home in relation to the care of this boy and following an investigation and assessment process, FACS removed AB’s nephew for 2 weeks on the basis that there was an “unacceptable standard of care” being provided and “the risk of accidental injury” in the home was too high.

The Applicant’s evidence

Prior to the hearing, the Applicant provided a statutory declaration to the Respondent dated 26 August 2016. It states “I understand that another party has made statements about my actions. I do not agree with these statements. However, I respect that she is a child and that her statements must be treated seriously. My focus has always been and still is on the care and well being of my family. I will continue to follow the directions of the AVO”. It refers to a meeting with FACS that day about the placement of AB’s nephew. It also refers to needing help with this statutory declaration because of “my literacy problems”.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he did not accept some aspects of the conduct attributed to him in the Police Facts of the trigger offence. He said he did not point his finger at the victim and denied saying “I will punch your head in”. He denied gesturing with a closed fist and he did not think his behaviour caused the victim any distress or anxiety because “she came over to my place a few weeks later”. The Applicant said he has “never hit a kid and never will”. He agreed that he punched and damaged an external fibro wall of the victim’s house during the incident and accepted that his temper had got the better of him. The Applicant however did not dispute that he pleaded guilty to the offences and that an AVO was made against him, which is intended to protect the victim and her mother from possible harm inflicted by him.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he maintains that the allegations made by V2 are untrue. He said he was installing drawer runners in his daughter’s bedroom at the time she was visiting and “had a drill in one hand and runners and screws in the other”. When asked why V2 would make these allegations against him, he said V2 was known as a “trouble-maker” and had made up allegations against other people. The Applicant said he thought V2 fabricated the allegations so that FACS would remove AB’s nephew from their care. The Applicant did not dispute that an AVO was made against him, intended to protect V2 from possible harm inflicted by him.
The Applicant was asked about sending text messages to V2 through a social media site, copies of which are contained in the Respondent’s material. The Applicant accepted he sent V2 a message which said “you looked very nice to night mate y where you walking around dressed like that”. He did not consider this to be inappropriate. He said he was trying to alert V2 to the dangers of “walking around dressed in that way” at night in the town they lived.
The Applicant also accepted he sent V2 the message “Hug n kiss no more n less ok”, but he said it was meant for his partner (AB) who was in hospital at the time and not V2. He agreed he sent V2 a message with a picture of a love heart but again said this was also meant for his partner (AB) and not V2. He accepted that he deliberately sent V2 a message which said “I like it when you come over I can have a joke if (sic) you” and “now go to bed and go to sleep you have school tomorrow ha ha”. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not think it was inappropriate to communicate with V2 through social media in this way.
The Tribunal found unconvincing the explanation given by the Applicant that some of the messages he sent were mistakenly sent to V2 and were meant instead for his partner (AB). The Applicant clearly showed a lack of insight into why communicating with V2 in this way was a cause of concern in relation to V2’s safety and possible risk of harm.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he thought “DOCS (FACS) were picking on us”. Respondent’s Counsel asked him whether raising of concerns about possible risks in relation to the care of a child was an example of FACS picking on him, and he said he thought that it was. He said “I have been picked on all my life and it hasn’t stopped”.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he was upset and distressed by questions posed by Respondent’s counsel, that were relevant in relation to certain aspects of his family history and his mental health, and he declined to answer some of them. The Respondent’s counsel asked the Applicant about a hospital admission in July 2016 under section 22 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) following threats of self-harm and observations by the Police that he was very depressed. In a conversation with a FACS worker in July 2016, there is reference to the Applicant being in a depressed state and having thoughts of self-harm as a result of the complaint made by V2 against him. There is a record that in August 2016, the Applicant told a FACS worker that he would kill himself if they removed AB’s nephew from his care. At the hearing when given the opportunity to do so, the Applicant did not wish to provide any further details in relation to these events other than agreeing he had been admitted to hospital because of concerns about his mental health and has received treatment for this since then.
Respondent’s counsel asked the Applicant about occasions noted in the material provided by the Respondent, where the Applicant is said to have spoken to officers of FACS and the Respondent in an angry or aggressive manner. The Applicant could not recall any of these events.
Even though he pleaded guilty to the trigger offence, the Applicant does not accept all of the conduct attributed to him in the complaint to the Police. He denied the allegations made by V2 and said she deliberately made up the allegations against him for an ulterior purpose. He did not accept that the concerns raised by FACS were sufficient to preclude him from caring for AB’s nephew.
The Tribunal was made aware by the Applicant, that his motivation to obtain a WWCC clearance is to enable him to have AB’s nephew returned to his care. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he thought the Tribunal could also decide whether AB’s nephew could return to their care. This seemed to be his principle motivation for seeking a review of the Respondent’s decision to cancel his WWCC clearance. The Applicant expressed a strong and genuine desire for the child to be returned to them as soon as possible.
The Applicant did not fully appreciate concerns about his conduct that were the subject of complaints and investigations, or concerns about his mental health. Particularly as these concerns relate to the safety of children.

Two references provided by the Applicant to the Respondent

The Applicant supplied a reference dated 6 September 2016 from VS, who works in a centre where the Applicant’s children attended. VS had contact with the Applicant from 2002 to 2007 and then from 2015 when AB’s nephew attended the centre. VS says that the Applicant is “polite, in good spirits and his attire was neat and tidy. He appeared to have a great bond with his two girls and showed a genuine concern to ensure they were meeting their developmental milestones. It is obvious that this bond has continued with the young child he and his family are caring for presently”. The Respondent contacted VS and she confirmed she was aware of the complaint made by V2. However she said she did not have much to do with the Applicant recently. It is unclear from the evidence before the Tribunal to what extent VS was aware of the trigger offence.
A reference from CM dated 8 September 2016 said she has known the Applicant for 15 years. CM says “my children have had weekly if not daily contact and numerous sleepovers” and has found the Applicant to be “honest and trustworthy and never doubted any of his intentions with any of my children”. CM states that that her children have “always felt safe and loved” by the Applicant. The Respondent contacted CM and she did not appear to be aware that her reference was in support of a WWCC application. She said she did not think the Applicant posed a risk to the safety of children. She was aware of the complaint made by V2, although it is noted by the Respondent that she did not know about one particular aspect of the complaint. As with VS’s reference, it is unclear to what extent CM was aware of the trigger offence.
The Tribunal considered these references to be supportive of the Applicant but of limited weight. They are of a personal nature and there is uncertainty surrounding the extent to which VS and CM were aware of all the complaints made against the Applicant.

Medical Evidence

A psychologist (GT) provided a reference to the Respondent on 26 August 2016 on behalf of the Applicant in the process of conducting a risk assessment. It notes he has seen the Applicant since 2010 in his capacity as a WorkCover treatment provider following the workplace injury in 2009. They have been focussing on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy to deal with “chronic pain and depression, issues of loss and grief and adjustment to disability as well as stress management and relaxation training”. GT notes that “the recent legal situation has led to extreme stress levels and fear of disruption to his family and to “AB’s nephew” placement. It notes that the Applicant “has embraced” the placement of AB’s nephew and is “highly motivated to work with DOCS staff to maintain and further develop the placement and (AB’s nephew’s) progress”. It refers to the meeting on that day that the Applicant also refers to in his statutory declaration, when they both met with the local manager from FACS and “developed an appropriate plan for cooperation and communication regarding (AB’s nephew’s) well being”.
A psychologist report from GT dated 20 January 2017 includes the following:

“I have provided all the information that I consider has any bearing on the matters being considered by the Office of the Children’s Guardian. All other information on the case file relates to six years of treatment for the work related injury that [the Applicant] suffered in 2009 and formed the basis of the original referral for treatment”.

The report notes that the Applicant had a spinal cord stimulator surgically implanted in his back in 2015.
GT refers to the meeting attended by him and the Applicant with representatives from “DOCS” (FACS) in August 2016 (noted in his report submitted for the risk assessment and the Applicant’s statutory declaration) to discuss concerns over the complaint made by V2 and in relation to AB’s nephew. At the meeting GT said the Applicant denied “any impropriety” towards V2. GT says the Applicant “recognised that his language and anger towards the DOCS caseworker and this girl was inappropriate and poorly judged. He explained that he was distressed at the potential serious consequences of these allegations being made”.
GT states that his psychological treatment of the Applicant has focussed on chronic pain management and his “previously sound psychological functioning and the loss of identity and capacity around the house and with his family, as well as the loss of role as provider”. GT notes that as a result of the workplace injury, the Applicant has faced chronically disturbed sleep, depression, some episodes of suicidal ideation, and pessimism regarding his future.
At the meeting with FACS in August 2016, GT says he was asked to provide a comprehensive mental health assessment, to which he agreed. Two weeks later GT said he was informed by FACS that during a meeting with the Applicant earlier that day, the Applicant became angry and difficult and declined the offer to take a break should this eventuate as he apparently had agreed to do at their meeting. GT considered that he could not provide a comprehensive mental health assessment to FACS because of the potential for a “conflict of interest” and “his role as treatment provider for the Applicant’s depression and chronic pain precluded me from being involved”.
GT states that he will continue treatment regarding the Applicant’s workplace injury and adjustment to his disability.
GT’s January 2017 report and the reference he provided in August 2016 in support of the Applicant as part of the risk assessment conducted by the Respondent, do not offer any view or opinion in relation to whether the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. Whilst this material provides some insight into the Applicant’s state of mind and psychological difficulties, they provide limited support to the Applicant’s case that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.

Factors the Tribunal must take into account

Section 30 (1) of the Act provides the factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining an application under Part 4 of the Act:

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.

The seriousness of the offences or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance

The trigger offence is a serious offence. The victim was 16 years old at the time and the offence also involved damage to property. The Applicant pleaded guilty and although he did not receive a custodial sentence (the maximum being a period of 5 years) he did receive a Section 10 Bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years and an Apprehended Violence Order against him for 2 years.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s conduct, which amounted to intimidating a child, demonstrates poor judgment and impulse control and is cause for concern in assessing risk to the safety of children.

The period of time since the offence occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred

The trigger offence occurred in 2015. A further complaint was made against the Applicant in 2016, which is of a serious nature, being an alleged indecent assault of a 15 year old girl (V2). The incident was investigated by FACS because V2 is a child in OOHC. Although the investigation by the NSW Police was closed due to V2 not wishing to pursue it, FACS found that “inappropriate touching” of V2 by the Applicant was “substantiated”. The Applicant denies he assaulted V2 but accepts that he sent her messages through social media.
FACS investigated the condition of the family home of the Applicant and his partner (AB) and found that it did not meet minimum standards of safety or hygiene. FACS assessed the risk of accidental injury to AB’s nephew being “too high” and an “unacceptable standard of care being provided”. AB’s nephew was temporarily removed and restored after 2 weeks but subsequently removed again following investigation of V2’s complaint.

The age of the person at the time of the offence

The Applicant was 39 years old at the time of the trigger offence.

The age of the victim

The victim of the trigger offence was 16 years old.

The difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person

The age difference was about 22 years and the Applicant is her uncle.

Whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child

The Applicant knew and accepts that the victim was a child.

The person’s present age

The Applicant is 39 years old.

The seriousness of the person’s total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred

The Applicant currently has two Apprehended Violence Orders made against him, which were made to protect three females, two of which are children. These Orders are not, however, criminal convictions.
The Applicant has one recorded criminal conviction for the offence of stalk/intimidate and one for destroy property, both listed as domestic violence offences and both involve a female child of 16 years.

The likelihood of repetition of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition

The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with a risk assessment from a suitably qualified expert in relation to whether he poses a risk to the safety of children.
The Tribunal finds the Applicant does not fully appreciate or understand the concerns raised by the Respondent and by FACS in relation to potential risks to the safety of children arising from his past behaviour.
The material obtained by the Respondent contains examples where the Applicant is said to have exhibited poor impulse control, and while it is also noted in the material that the Applicant did, on some occasions, concede he could have handled things differently, his evidence before the Tribunal about this was not forthcoming and did not sufficiently counter the potential risks of this behaviour, as identified by the Respondent in relation to the safety of children.
The Applicant’s evidence in relation to the messages sent to V2 also demonstrate a lack of insight into why this communication was of concern especially in the context of the age difference and adult child relationship between them.
The likelihood of repetition of the trigger offence cannot be discounted and the impact on children of any such repetition is significant.

Any information given in, or in relation to, the Application

The Applicant said in his statutory declaration of August 2016 that he denied the allegations made by V2 but says they must be taken seriously. When he gave evidence to the Tribunal, he said that V2 made up the allegations against him because she wanted FACS to remove AB’s nephew from his care.
The Applicant’s partner (AB) and their two daughters gave evidence at the hearing. This evidence principally concerned the allegations made by V2 against the Applicant. Both the Applicant’s daughters were present at the time V2 was visiting. Whilst some of their evidence of what happened on and around this time was at times inconsistent with each other, both daughters said that the Applicant did not indecently assault V2.
The Applicant’s daughters also wrote statements that were attached to the Applicant’s correspondence to the Respondent’s solicitors, which also suggest that V2 said she “regretted it all” and “if I could go back and change it I would”.
AB told the Tribunal that the Police were informed of an incident in August 2016 when V2 drove past their house taunting them saying “ha ha got youse all”.
The Applicant tendered a transcript of an interview between an officer from the FACS Reportable Conduct Unit and members of the Applicant’s family in December 2016, which also sought to counter V2’s complaint.
The Respondent’s material includes records of treatment received by the Applicant for mental health difficulties. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he is currently taking medication for depression and for pain in his back. The Tribunal did not have any evidence about the impact of the Applicant’s current state of mental health, or the impact of the medication he is currently taking, in relation to the safety of children.

Conclusion and orders

The Applicant’s case focussed heavily on countering the complaint made by V2. This is understandable from the Applicant’s point of view as it appears to have led to the final removal of AB’s nephew from their care, which has been a great source of distress for the Applicant. The Applicant made it very clear that he wants AB’s nephew to be returned to their care as soon as it is possible.
It is relevant that FACS substantiated “inappropriate touching” in relation to V2’s complaint following an investigation. However the Tribunal is not in the position on the basis of the evidence available to it, to make any findings of fact in relation to V2’s complaint of being indecently assaulted by the Applicant. Critically, the Applicant did not dispute he sent V2 certain messages through social media and he had limited insight into the concerns that arise from this behaviour in relation to the safety of children.
The Applicant pleaded guilty to the trigger offence but showed limited insight into the impact of his actions on the victim.
The evidence in support of the Applicant’s case is essentially of a personal nature. The only expert evidence is provided by the Applicant’s psychologist (GT) but he offers no opinion in relation to risk the Applicant might pose to the safety of children.
The Applicant has required hospitalisation in relation to his mental health in the recent past and it is not sufficiently clear from the evidence before the Tribunal, the potential impact of his current mental health status, or the treatment he is receiving, on the risk this might pose to the safety of children.
Taking into account the factors set out in section 30 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence before it, that there is a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal considers that the risk is greater than the risk posed by any ordinary adult to the safety of children, and that the correct and preferable decision in this case is to cancel the Applicant’s WWCC clearance.
The Tribunal is therefore not required to proceed to consider the factors set out in section 30 (1A) of the Act.

Orders

The Tribunal orders that:

The decision of the Respondent to cancel the Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.

********

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

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

12 October 2017 - Paragraph 35 - the word ‘not’ inserted into the 4th sentence.

Decision last updated: 12 October 2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	CVG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 168
Hearing dates:	4 April 2017
Date of orders:	26 May 2017
Decision date:	26 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Hitter, Senior Member S Davison, General Member
Decision:	The decision of the Respondent to cancel the Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	BJB v Office of the Children’s Guardian (2014) NSW CATAD 111 at 110 BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No. 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 at 32 BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523 BRT v Children’s Guardian (2015) NSW CATAD 272
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CVG (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Giacomo (Respondent) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00378467, 1610715
Publication restriction:	Disclosure of the name of the applicant and the name of any alleged victim or child referred to in the material before the Tribunal is prohibited. Note: the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.