TNW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
[2024] QCAT 35
•15 January 2024
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
TNW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2024] QCAT 35
PARTIES:
TNW (Applicant)
v
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
CML248-22
MATTER TYPE:
Childrens matters
DELIVERED ON:
15 January 2024
HEARING DATE:
24 August 2023
25 August 2023
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Paratz AM
ORDERS:
1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, made on 6 July 2022, pursuant to Section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld), that:
(a) the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Chief Executive to issue a working with children clearance to the Applicant, and
(b) to issue a Negative Notice to the Applicant,
is confirmed.
2. The Non-Publication Orders made as Orders 3 and 4 on 22 February 2023; and as Order 5 on 18 May 2023; are cancelled.
3. The publication of the contents of any document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal, and any evidence given to the Tribunal by any witness, other than as published in these Reasons, is prohibited to the extent that it could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the Applicant, or any member of the Applicant’s family or any non-party to the proceedings, including any child, pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE LAW – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE AND TERRITORY LEGISLATION – Blue Card – where Applicant was issued with a negative notice – whether exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance – where the Applicant was charged with indecent dealing – where the Applicant’s registration as a teacher is cancelled and the Applicant is prohibited indefinitely from re-applying for registration as a teacher or for permission to teach
Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld), s 221
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66
Department for Child Protection v Scott [2008] WASCA 171
Grindrod v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Community Development [2008] WASAT 289
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
L Hailstones (Legal Officer)
REASONS FOR DECISION
TNW (‘the Applicant’) applied to be issued with a Blue Card. On 6 July 2022 the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (‘the Department’) issued a negative notice under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act) 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’).
The Applicant filed an application in the Tribunal on 2 August 2022 to review the decision of the Department to issue a negative notice.
I heard the matter on 24 August 2023 and 25 August 2023.
History
The Applicant had been issued with a Blue Card in 2004, 2007 and 2009, and an exemption card in 2011. Blue Card Services was notified on 26 May 2014 by Queensland Police Service that the Applicant’s police information had changed, as he had been charged with disqualifying offences, and his exemption card was suspended.[1]
[1]Reasons for the Decision, 6 July 2022 (BCS-1), [1].
Blue Card Services were subsequently notified by the Queensland College of Teachers that the Applicant was the subject of disciplinary action and his teacher’s registration had been suspended. As a result of the suspension, the Applicant’s exemption card was no longer current, and was surrendered.[2]
[2]Ibid [2.1].
The offences with which the Applicant had been charged, which were proceeding, were two counts of indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind as a carer under section 216 of the Criminal Code Act1899 (Qld).
The police brief of facts referred to allegations that:[3]
(a)the complainant suffered from an intellectual disability and had mental health challenges, required 24-hour care from at least one carer at all times, and resided at a mental health facility in Queensland
(b)on 5 September 2013, the Applicant was required to work the night shift with the complainant, from 9:00 pm until 7:00 am the following day, as her only carer
(c)the Applicant was not the complainant’s regular carer
(d)on 6 September 2013 the complainant asked to speak to the service coordinator and gave certain information about the alleged conduct of the Applicant
(e)the alleged conduct of the Applicant was that he entered her unit, got into bed with her and started to rub her breast with both hands, was kissing her chest and around her mouth and face, removed her pyjama bottoms and underwear, and then licked the complainant between her bum cheeks up and down a number of times.
[3]Ibid 3.1.1.
The complainant passed away in early 2016. The Director of Public Prosecutions considered that the matter could not proceed, and entered a Nolle Prosequi in the District Court of Queensland, discontinuing the criminal proceedings.
At the time of the alleged offences, the Applicant was a registered teacher who was employed at a special education school. The criminal charges arose out of his secondary employment as a carer/support worker through an organisation who were contracted to provide carer/support workers to patients at a mental health facility.[4]
[4]Ibid [5.3].
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Queensland College of Teachers, and the Applicants teacher registration was suspended in 2014.
This Tribunal ordered in 2014 that the Applicant’s teacher’s registration suspension should continue. In 2018, this Tribunal ordered that the Applicant’s teacher registration be cancelled, and the Applicant be prohibited indefinitely from re-applying for registration as a teacher or for permission to teach.
The Applicant changed his name two months before the hearing in these proceedings.
Evidence for the Applicant
The Applicant gave oral evidence, and called four witnesses as referees.
The Applicant
In the course of cross-examination, the Applicant gave evidence that he had four children with three separate women, and that the children were aged from their lower teens to their mid-20s.
He said that he had recently changed his name, as there were two versions of his initial name which was causing a lot of confusion, and that publication of his name in earlier proceedings had affected his ability to gain employment.
The Applicant disputed the allegations made in the criminal proceedings, and considered the indefinite suspension of his teachers registration to be unfair and excessive. He said that he considered that the Queensland College of Teachers had discriminated against him on the basis of his Middle Eastern ethnic background.
He said that in 2007 he had a one-year relationship with a woman who he had a child with, who claimed that he had committed domestic violence and alleged sexual interference with their child. He denied that he had ever committed domestic violence.
He said that he then had a relationship with another woman from 2008 to 2011, and is still in contact with children from that relationship.
He said that the complainant in the criminal proceedings was mentally disturbed, suicidal, violent, engaged in self-harm, was a large woman who needed two workers to handle her, and had bodily harmed two people.
He denied that he had pulled the complainants shirt down, or kissed her, or rubbed her breasts or removed her underwear.
In the course of his evidence about his actions with the complainant on the night, he himself raised and answered a rhetorical question that ‘If you are aroused, can you stop? Obviously no’, but did not say that he had been aroused on the night.
He expressed the view that the complainant had fabricated the complaint to attract attention, and said that none of the allegations are true, and that he was innocent of them.
He agreed that he had told the complainant that she looked beautiful, and said that he says things like that to all his students, and asked rhetorically: ‘Who doesn’t say that, if I complimented you, and say you look lovely and your hair looks lovely – is that bad?’
He said that he had rubbed cream on the complainant’s neck, but that was ‘not touching’, and that he didn’t tell the police about putting cream on her neck as ‘I sometimes forget things, I am a human not a God’.
He said that the complainant had pulled her shirt down off her shoulder and showed him her tattoos.
He said he was supposed to have had a female carer rostered on with him, but that she did not show up for work.
He accepted that his DNA was found by police in the complainant’s underpants, but explained that happened because he had folded the complainant’s underpants that night.
The Applicant was asked about a psychological assessment that was prepared by a forensic psychologist on 25 January 2018 for the purpose of a sexual offending risk assessment which had been requested to assist in Family Court proceedings in which the Applicant was involved in relation to one of his children.
The psychologist had recorded a response from the Applicant as to any previous allegations as follows:[5]
13.6 In regard to his broader lifestyle factors at the time of the allegations (the criminal allegations discussed in this matter) (the Applicant) stated that he would have been involved with (name withheld) and that this included a sexual relationship. He denied experiencing any particular stress source of difficulties at the time. He advised that there have been no prior or subsequent allegations of sexual abuse/inappropriate sexual behaviour, nor has there been any concerns or involvement from the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability. (The Applicant) was queried on if, in light of the allegation/charges, there was anything he would change in the future to mitigate any associated concern/risk, to which he responded in the negative, stating that he ‘hasn’t done anything wrong’ and there is ‘nothing to change’.
[5]Report of the Forensic Psychology Centre, 25 January 2018 (Exhibit 2) [13.6].
The Applicant agreed in cross examination that he had not told the psychologist about prior allegations that he had sexually abused his daughter. He said that those were allegations made by his wife, and that in his culture there is shame in talking about such matters, and that he wouldn’t even tell his father. He said he did not need to tell the psychologist at the time as she had access to reports which discussed the allegations.
The Applicant agreed that he should have revealed the prior allegations to the psychologist.
He was asked to comment on two of his partners having made allegations that he sexually abused children, and responded that both partners had made the allegations in the context of custody disputes.
The Applicant was asked about what the psychologist described as ‘a mild level of problems associated with anger’,[6] and replied that ‘everyone gets anger’ and that he used to see his previous psychologist as to how he could defuse his anger.
[6]Ibid [16.13].
He said that he has undertaken family counselling and anger management training. He said that now, when he feels very angry, he leaves the house and goes out, and tries to work and keep himself distracted.
He was referred to a temporary domestic violence order that was made against him on 22 January 2015;[7] a protection order made on 19 March 2015;[8] a temporary domestic violence order made on 13 December 2011;[9] a protection order made on 12 November 2014;[10] a protection order made on 2 February 2012;[11] and a temporary domestic violence order made on 1 September 2014.[12]
[7]BCS 452.
[8]BCS 453.
[9]BCS 454.
[10]BCS 455.
[11]BCS 455.
[12]BCS 456.
He said that 2 domestic violence orders had been made against him, which he described as ‘stupid’. He said that one was made by a woman who ‘conned’ him out of $10,000 and that she was trying to justify herself.
The Applicant was asked about the comments of the psychologist as to his alleged offending behaviour which were as follows:[13]
20.3 Specifically regarding the reported offending behaviour and based on the limited information available to me, it is highly difficult to form a clear formulation, though I would, at this time, hypothesise that the offence (if it occurred) did so as a result of more specific contextual and situational factors, rather than sexual deviancy or entrenched sexual self-regulation difficulties. It would be possible that experiencing some type of stress or circumstance (e.g. relationship difficulties; difficulties at work/expectations related to employment) that he viewed as a negative/critical reflection upon himself, may have made (the Applicant) feel vulnerable and/or triggered off a sense of inadequacy or failure. Within this context, and having contact with the victim, whose physical characteristics would likely have appealed to him (attraction to large women), (the Applicant) has likely experienced sexual arousal, which may have been triggered by some innocuous behaviour/contact with the victim, and then, given the ‘opportunity and access’ enabled him to engage in sexually abusive behaviour. It seems likely that his behaviour in this context was driven more in an attempt to address emotional needs, rather than by sexual gratification.
[13]Op Cit Report [20.3].
The Applicant replied that he is not really attracted to large women, and asked how he could fulfil his emotional needs with someone he did not know.
He said that his relationship with his children is very strong, and getting stronger.
CE
CE is the partner of the Applicant. She referred to an undated and unsigned two-page document as her statement.[14] She said that the Applicant had written the statement.
[14]Statement of EC (Exhibit 14).
She said that she had met the Applicant in 2013, and that they began a sexual relationship 6 to 12 months after.
She knew about some domestic violence orders made against the Applicant in relation to his former partners, but said that she did not know that the details, but that it ‘went both ways’.
She did not know if the Applicant had contact with the Department of Children’s Services, and was not aware whether the police had interviewed him as to abusing his child.
She was asked about any displays of anger by the Applicant, and said that he remains calm, and she had only heard him raise his voice twice, one time after she had raised her voice.
She said that she had heard from his ex-partner to be careful of the Applicant as he was violent and aggressive, but in that time that she has been with him she has never seen that.
She said that she had not seen the tribunal decision as to the cancellation of the Applicant’s teachers registration. When it was put to her that the tribunal in the teachers registration proceeding found that it was ‘comfortably satisfied’ that the allegations were proved, and that the Applicant was not truthful, she said that would not affect her support for him.
HL
HL stated in an email dated 17 July 2020 that she had known the Applicant for almost four years as he was her trainer for a Certificate IV in ageing support.[15]
[15]Email from HL to the Applicant dated 17 July 2020 (Exhibit 15).
She stated that she highly recommended the Applicant as he was ‘versatile, knowledgeable, and extremely professional at all times’.
In the course of her evidence she said that she had thought the email she had sent was a professional reference to a job application; was unaware that Applicant had been refused a blue card, or that he had been charged with two charges of indecent dealing; and was unaware that his teachers registration had been cancelled, or that he had been interviewed by police as to sexually abusing his daughter.
She said that she had never seen the Applicant make any sexual advances to students, behave badly towards students, or behave badly with them, and thought he was a very good teacher.
YM
YM stated in an email dated 21 July 2020 that she had been a close friend of the Applicant for five years, and had known him in many capacities, and had worked with him at a variety of training facilities.
She stated that he was a decent, hard-working, and trustworthy person, with very good behaviour, and was humble and very supportive to his students and was very passionate and wonderful as a colleague.
In the course of her evidence she said she was unaware that the Applicant’s blue card had been cancelled, and was not aware of the teachers disciplinary proceedings, or of the indecent dealing charges, or allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse of his daughter.
She said that she had never seen the Applicant display violence or sexual impropriety to students, observed him to be a loving father, and stated that she cannot believe that he would abuse a child.
DF
DF stated in an undated two paragraph letter that she had known the Applicant for the previous four years when she was working at a training establishment where he was also employed.
She stated that after spending a good amount of time together she had realised and witnessed how caring, hard-working, and thoughtful he was with his students, and that he had good relationships with other colleagues at work. She described him as honest, dependable, peaceful, and conscientious.
In the course of her evidence she said that she had provided a reference to show that the Applicant was a person of good moral character, as she thought the Applicant wanted to apply for a position.
She said that she was aware that his blue card had been cancelled, but was not aware of the reasons for doing so. She said that she had no knowledge of any complaints against TNW, and thought he was applying for a job. She was not aware that he had been charged with two charges of indecent dealing, was unaware of the status of his registration as a teacher, and was unaware of any domestic violence orders made against him, or as to any allegations as to abuse of his daughter.
She said she had never seen him abusing any children, and that he was a good trainer.
Evidence for the Department
The Department relied upon four bound volumes of material which it filed. The Applicant did not seek to cross-examine as to the material.
The material relied upon by the Department included substantial material relating to the records of the Queensland Department of Children’s Services, Queensland Police, and the Queensland College of Teachers.
Submissions of TNW
TNW made oral closing submissions.
He said that the sexual allegations about his conduct with children had been proven not to have taken place, and that he was not driven by sexual impulses.
He described the actions of the Queensland College of Teachers as having been discriminatory, and took issue with the severity of the indefinite suspension as a teacher imposed upon him.
He said that he had received numerous character references in his support, and that it would be a great loss to lose a qualified trainer such as himself who was able to contribute to educating students.
He said that it had not been demonstrated that he displayed anger.
Submissions of the Department
The Department made oral closing submissions, making reference to its written submissions dated 17 July 2023, and subsequently filed a written copy of its oral closing submissions.
It said that the main concerns in this matter were as to the Applicant’s insight, his truthfulness, his disciplinary history, and the risk to children who are vulnerable people.
It noted that the Applicant denies guilt as to the criminal charges that were brought against him, and relies on the dismissal of the charges as proof that the charges were misconceived; but notes rather that the charges were unable to proceed in the absence of evidence from the complainant.
It submitted that there were many inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence.
It notes that the Tribunal was ‘comfortably satisfied’ that the Applicant was not an appropriate person to be registered as a teacher.
It noted that a direction had been made in this matter as to the filing of any health reports, including any reports by a psychologist or psychiatrist, by the Applicant by 21 February 2023, and that the Applicant had not filed any such reports.
The Department submitted that it remained highly concerned by the allegations made against the Applicant in relation to the criminal proceedings for indecent dealing.
It submitted that the Applicant’s contentions that not having a blue card meant that he would be unable to return to his chosen career, and that others would be disadvantaged if he could not teach, are not relevant to determining whether his case is an exceptional case, referring to the decisions in Grindrod v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Community Development,[16] and the comments of Buss J in Department for Child Protection v Scott [No 2].[17]
[16][2008] WASAT 289 at [33].
[17][2008] WASCA 171 at [109].
It acknowledged the passage of time since the alleged indecent dealing in September 2013, but submitted this is just one factor to be considered, and must be considered in conjunction with the totality of the material, including the seriousness of the allegations and the Tribunal’s findings in 2018.
It submitted that the Applicant gave inconsistent and obfuscating evidence about his conduct and the allegations, which raises serious questions about his credibility.
It noted the Applicant’s lack of strategies to manage his anger.
It submitted that the Tribunal should find that the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for him to be issued with a blue card.
Submissions in reply of the Applicant
TNW submitted in response that the police officer who handled the complaint of indecent dealing had said that she knew the complainant as a child, and he queried whether there may be a family relationship between them.
He referred to the psychologist’s report which had been prepared for the family law proceedings, and said that it would not have affected the report even if he had told the psychologist about the allegations of sexual abuse of his child.
Discussion
Section 221 of the Act provides that a working with children clearance must be issued, unless it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to be issued with a working with children clearance, as follows:
221Deciding application—no relevant information or conviction etc. for non-serious offence
(1)The chief executive must issue a working with children clearance to the person if the chief executive—
(a) is not aware of any relevant information about the person; or
(b) is not required to issue a negative notice to the person under subsection (2).
(2)The chief executive must issue a negative notice to the person if the chief executive—
(a) is aware of relevant information about the person; and
(b) is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to the person.
(3)For subsections (1) and (2), the following information about the person is relevant information—
(a) information that the person has—
(i)a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence; or
(ii)a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or
Note - For charges for disqualifying offences that have not been dealt with, see chapter 7, part 4, division 4 and sections 199, 295(1) and 296.
(iii)a conviction for an offence other than a serious offence;
(b) investigative information;
(c) domestic violence information;
(d) disciplinary information;
(e) adverse interstate WWC information;
(f) other information about the person that the chief executive reasonably believes is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to the person.
TNW is seeking to satisfy the Tribunal that his is not an exceptional case, and that a blue card should issue as a matter of course.
The Department has raised a number of serious issues relating to concerns as to the safety of children if the Applicant were to hold a blue card and work with them. Those concerns relate to his previous history of domestic violence orders, allegations of abuse of his own child, charges of indecent dealing with a vulnerable young woman, questions as to his insight into his behaviour and anger management, and his being suspended indefinitely as a teacher.
A table as to the domestic violence proceedings in which he has been involved at three separate South-East Queensland Magistrates Courts was provided by the Department in its closing submissions as follows:
Order details
Date issued
Date expired
Alleged conduct
Temporary Order
13 December 2011
02 February 2012
Verbal and sexual abuse (date/s unknown)
Final Order
2 February 2012
10 February 2012
Verbal and sexual abuse (date/s unknown)
Temporary Order
1 September 2014
12 November 2014
Written harassment (on an unknown date in 2014)
Final Order
12 November 2014
12 November 2016
Written harassment (on an unknown date in 2014)
Temporary Order
22 January 2015
18 February 2015
Verbal and sexual abusive and verbal threats of physical harm and threats of damage to property (date/s unknown)
Final Order
19 March 2015
19 March 2016
Verbal and sexual abusive and verbal threats of physical harm and threats of damage to property (date/s unknown)
The complainant in each of the three sets of domestic violence proceedings was a different person.
TNW contended that the domestic violence orders made against him were wrongly made, and essentially presented himself as the victim of unfounded allegations by complainants who had ulterior financial or other motives.
The making of domestic violence orders against him is undisputed, and in the absence of clear evidence indicating that they were wrongly made, they carry an obvious adverse implication as to TNW’s aggressive tendencies and anger management.
The most recent orders ran until 19 March 2016. Whilst that is now almost 8 years ago, that is not a length of time that would by itself preclude inferences being drawn as to TNW’s tenancies as to anger which would require rebuttal by clear evidence (and preferably by expert health professional evidence).
TNWs teacher registration was cancelled by this Tribunal in 2018, and he was prohibited indefinitely from reapplying for registration as a teacher or for permission to teach.
That Tribunal found (citation withheld for confidentiality reasons) that it was ‘comfortably satisfied’ that all of the allegations of the complainant as to indecent dealing by TNW were substantiated, and that ‘We have no doubt that the conduct we have found that (TNW) engaged in does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’; and made the following comments as to sanction:
We accept QCT’s submission that (TNW’s) conduct is at the most serious end of the spectrum and that cancellation of his teacher registration is required. We have considered whether, as in Napier, cancellation with a prohibition reapplying for registration for an extended period (in that case, three years, along with a condition requiring psychological treatment and assessment) would be appropriate.
However, having regard to the serious nature of the conduct in this case, we consider that the risk of harm to children in allowing (TNW) to apply to return to teaching is too great. The Act contemplates cancellation for an indefinite period: s160(2). As already noted, the behaviour in this case is of a most serious nature. We accept QCT’s submission that cancellation for an indefinite period is the only appropriate course.
The findings of the Tribunal as to the risk of harm to children presented by TNW acting as a teacher are not automatically determinative of his suitability to now hold a blue card, but they are clear and directly applicable findings and comments that may be considered in the context of forming an overall conclusion in this Application.
TNW gave evidence in the hearing of this matter himself, and called four witnesses. Those witnesses were his current partner, and three other persons who have known him through work and personal connections.
I do not consider that any of the four witnesses called by TNW gave persuasive and informed evidence.
The statement of his current partner, CE says that ‘I am drafting this statement to support my partner application’. CE however said in her evidence that the Applicant had prepared the statement. The statement is glowing in its praise of the Applicant, and is written in in English that is a little clumsy, with grammar and phrasing errors. For example, at paragraph 3 it describes the Applicant as ‘he is very loving father and hard-working man’; in paragraph 4 it describes the Applicant as ‘very resilience’; and says at paragraph 5 that he ‘is great educator’.
This form of English expression is more likely to have been written by the Applicant, to whom English does not seem to be a first language, rather than to have been written by CE herself, who speaks in vernacular Australian English.
The declaration that the statement was drafted by CE is misleading, as CE herself says that it was drafted by the Applicant, and the form and content of the English suggests that the Applicant was the author.
I do not place great weight on the evidence of CE. I accept that she has genuine affection for the Applicant, but consider that she appears enthralled by him, and does not display an informed objective appreciation of him.
I do not attach much weight to the evidence of HL as she was unaware of the criminal proceedings, or the blue card proceedings, or of the Applicant’s past history. Her evidence only related to her observations of him as a teacher, which was in a controlled environment, and did not place his behaviour in any broader context.
I similarly do not attach much weight to the evidence of HM, as she was also unaware of the criminal proceedings, or the blue card proceedings, or of the Applicant’s past history. Her evidence was in the context of a personal reference that was confined to her observations of his behaviour, and did not assess that in the context of other proceedings against him.
I similarly do not attach much weight to the evidence of HL as she was unaware of the criminal proceedings, or the blue card proceedings, or of the Applicant’s past history. Her evidence also only related to her observations of him as a teacher, which was in a controlled environment, and did not place his behaviour in any broader context.
The evidence of TNW himself was highly defensive. He essentially denied all allegations of verbal or sexual abuse by himself, and portrayed himself as the victim of unfounded allegations based upon improper financial motives or discrimination against him on the basis of his ethnic background.
TNW did not display any meaningful insight into his own behaviour.
TNW made blanket denials of any actions of abuse by himself, which are directly contradicted by the findings of several Magistrates Courts, and by the findings of this Tribunal as to his unfitness to be a teacher.
It is significant that TNW did not adduce any expert health professional evidence directed at the issues in this application, including as to his insight into his behaviour, or as to issues of anger management, even though he was given the clear opportunity to file any such material by Directions of the Tribunal.
The only expert health professional evidence of any relevance that was provided by TNW in this application, was by way of filing and relying upon a report of a Forensic Psychologist in 2018 which had been prepared for the purpose of a sexual offending risk assessment in Family Court proceedings in which he was involved, and was obtained at the request of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.
That report of the forensic psychologist has to be viewed with care, as TNW concedes that he did not inform the psychologist about allegations that he had sexually abused his daughter. Those are background allegations that a psychologist would obviously want to be informed of, in order to discuss them with TNW, and make an assessment in full knowledge of them.
The psychologist noted in her report as to the effect of further information in relation to the sexual offending allegations as follows:
18.5 Needless to say, it is important to highlight that if the allegations against (TNW) are considered to be false, then the assessment to manage his risk of committing acts of sexual violence would be considered unnecessary, as this level of risk would be no more than any other member of the general public. Should additional information be provided in relation to these allegations it would likely impact the outcome of the sexual offending risk assessment.
I do not accept the evidence or submissions of TNW.
I accept the submissions of the Department in relation to whether TNW’s case is an exceptional case.
Once the evidence of TNW is not accepted, and given that I do not place weight upon the evidence of any of his witnesses, and do not accept his submissions, but do accept the submissions of the department, the inescapable consequence is that TNW has not satisfied the Tribunal that his is not an exceptional case.
I find that the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Chief Executive to issue a working with children clearance, and that a Negative Notice should issue, pursuant to Section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld).
I confirm the decision of the Department made on 6 July 2022 to issue the Applicant with a negative notice pursuant to Section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act 2000 (Qld).
Non-Publication orders
Non-Publication orders were made in this application on 22 February 2023, prohibiting the publication of material or evidence that could lead to the identification of the Applicant, any family member of the Applicant, any child, or any non-party to the proceedings, save as was necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings.
Further confidentiality orders were made on 18 May 2023 as to the publication of materials relating to the teacher’s disciplinary proceedings. Order 4 required all parties and the Registry to destroy certain transcripts at the end of the proceeding.
The Applicant requested that final Non-Publication orders be made in order that he and his partner could move on with their lives without further publicity or identification and possible harassment. The Department did not oppose the making of such orders.
I am satisfied that non-publication orders are necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of the Applicant, his partner and his family, pursuant to s 66(2)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
The Applicant foreshadowed that he may be seeking to take further legal proceedings in relation to his teacher registration. If so, he may wish to have access to some of the materials that were filed in these proceedings. I will therefore cancel the Order requiring the destruction of materials, but still make the materials subject to non-publication provisions.
For convenience, I will cancel the existing non-publication orders made on 22 February 2023 and 18 May 2023, and make a new Order as follows:
The publication of the contents of any document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal, and any evidence given to the Tribunal by any witness, other than as published in these Reasons, is prohibited to the extent that it could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the Applicant, or any member of the Applicant’s family or any non-party to the proceedings, including any child, pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
0
2
2