Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BKF v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 283 Hearing dates: 28 January 2015 & 25 January 2016 Date of orders: 25 January 2016 Decision date: 25 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Mullane ADCJ, Principal Member Decision: (1)The applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the offences of "Assault With act of Indecency" of which he was convicted by the Local Court Downing Centre in August 2011. (2) The Children's Guardian must grant the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance; and (3)The publication or broadcast of the name or other identifying information of the applicant or any victim of the offences of which he was convicted (or of any offences taken into account) by the Local Court when the conviction occurred, is prohibited. Catchwords: Working with children, disqualifying convictions for sexual assaults, enabling application, therapy, low risk, application granted. Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012; Child Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2015; Adoption Act, 2000; Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, 1998 Cases Cited: Commission For Children and Young People –v- V [2002] NSWSC 949. Category: Principal judgment Parties: BFK (Applicant) Children's Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Miller (Applicant) M Neville (Respondent) Solicitors: Bell Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410361 Publication restriction: See Order 3. rEASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. The applicant was born in 1986. 2. In August 2011 he was convicted of 2 counts of "assault with act of indecency" under Section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900. 3. The offences were committed on 30 May 2010. 4. Under the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 ("The Act"), those convictions disqualified him from obtaining a Working With Children Check Clearance and the Act prohibited the Children's Guardian from granting such a clearance to him. 5. On 6 May 2014, the applicant applied to the Children's Guardian for a Working With Children Check Clearance. On 12 June 2014 the Children's Guardian refused the application and sent a letter that day notifying the applicant. 6. The applicant filed his application in the Tribunal seeking enabling orders so that he would not be treated as a disqualified person for purposes of the Act. 7. This was a hearing of that application for enabling orders. The Evidence 1. The evidence comprised: 1. The application for enabling orders. 2. Section 31 Response from Australian College of Physical and Health Education of 12 September 2014; 3. Response from a Cricket Association of 25 September 2014; 4. Check Results Report from Crimtrac of 17 June 2014; 5. Records of Central Local Court relating to charges, convictions, and other matters taken into account; 6. Documents from Sex Crime Squad of NSW Police; 7. Documents from Department of Corrective Services; 8. Reports and other documents from Dr Sean Fraser (treating psychologist); 9. Documents provided from Police Force in response to request for AVO history of applicant; 10. Documents provided by Catholic Education Office; 11. Affidavit of B H, teacher; 12. Further bundle of material from Department of Corrective Services; 13. Affidavit of the applicant of 14 October 2015; 14. Affidavit to of the applicant sworn 18 November 2014; 15. Documents produced by Dr Emma Collins including copy of her second report; 16. Oral evidence of the applicant on 28 January 2015; 17. Oral evidence of Dr Emma Collins on 28 January 2015; 18. Oral evidence of Dr Emma Collins on 25 January 2016; 19. Exhibit A1 – treatment review summary of Dr Collins. Relevant Law 1. On 28 September 2015 the Child Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2015 ("the Amendment Act"), which in Schedule 2 set out amendments to the Act, was assented to. It provided that it commenced on subsequent dates by proclamation. The first of those proclamation dates was 2 November 2015. The relevant amendments to the Act in the Amendment Act do not apply to this application for enabling orders because the application was made on 11 July 2014 before the commencement of any of the amendments in the Amendment Act. Also the Amendment Act specifically provides that amendments to sections 16(2), 26 and 30 and Schedule 2 of the Act would not apply to enabling applications filed before the commencement of those amendments (see clauses 16,17,19 and 22 of the Amendment Act). 2. Accordingly the relevant parts of the Act applied as before the Amendment Act amendments and the following discussion proceeds on that basis. 3. Section 4 of the Act provides that: "The safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration in the operation of this Act." 1. Section 6 of the Act provides that a person who is an authorised carer of a child is engaged in "child-related work" for purposes of the Act. 2. Section 8 requires that a worker must not engage in child-related work unless the worker holds a "Working with Children Check Clearance" of a class applicable to the work or there is a current application by the worker to the Children's Guardian for a clearance of a class applicable to that work. There is also provision for an "interim bar". 3. Section 9 provides that an employer must not commence employing or continue to employ a worker in child-related work if the employer knows or has reasonable cause to believe that worker is subject to an interim bar or is not the holder of a Working with Children Check Clearance that authorises that work and there is no current application by the worker to the Children's Guardian for a clearance of a class applicable to that work. 4. Section 11 of the Act applies to any person who submits an application to adopt a child under the Adoption Act, 2000. It provides in ss.11(2) that the person assessing the application under that Act may request the applicant for adoption be screened by the Children's Guardian as if the person were an Applicant for a Working with Children Check Clearance of any class. Subsection 11(3) requires the Children's Guardian to treat such a request as if the person had applied for a clearance for child-related work. 5. Section 12 provides that there are two classes of Working with Children Check Clearances which are: a) Volunteer – authorising workers to engage in unpaid child-related work; and b) Non-volunteer – authorising workers to engage in paid and unpaid child-related work. 1. Section 13 provides for applications to be made to the Children's Guardian for a Working with Children Check Clearance. 2. Subsection 18(1) of the Act prohibits the Children's Guardian from granting a Working with Children Check Clearance to a person who is a disqualified person and provides that one category of disqualified persons is "a person convicted before, on or after the commencement of this section of an offence specified in Schedule 2, if the offence was committed as an adult". The Applicant was born in 1986 and was an adult at the time of the offence. 3. In para (1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Act, the subject offences under s61L of the Crimes Act, 1900, are included in the specified offences that are disqualifying offences. 4. Accordingly, the provisions of the Act referred to above prohibited the Children's Guardian from issuing a Working with Children Check Clearance to the applicant because of the offences in 2010. 5. Section 28 of the Act provides: 1. The Tribunal may, on the application of a disqualified person, make an order declaring that the person is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of this Act in respect of an offence specified in the order (an enabling order). Any such order has effect according to its tenor. 2. The Tribunal may, on the application of a person who is not eligible to apply for a clearance because the person has been previously refused a clearance, make an order declaring that the person is to be treated as a person who is eligible to apply for a clearance (an enabling order). Any such order has effect according to its tenor. 3. A disqualified person may make an application under this section only if: 1. the person has been refused a working with children check clearance, or 2. the person's clearance has been cancelled, because the person is a disqualified person. 1. 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. 2. An applicant must fully disclose to the Tribunal any matters relevant to the application. 3. If the Tribunal makes an enabling order, the Tribunal may order the Children's Guardian to revoke an interim bar or to grant the person a clearance. 4. 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. 5. An enabling order may not be made subject to conditions. 6. An appeal lies on a question of law to the Supreme Court by any party to the proceedings. 1. Section 30 of the Act provides as follows: 1. The Tribunal must consider the following in determining an application under this Part: 1. 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, 2. the period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred, 3. the age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred, 4. 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, 5. the difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person, 6. whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child, 7. the person's present age, 8. the seriousness of the person's total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred, 9. the likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition, 10. any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application, 11. any other matters that the Commission considers necessary. 1. On an application under section 28 or 29, the Tribunal may, by order, stay the operation of a determination by the Commission under this Act relating to the applicant pending the determination of the matter. Note. Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 enables a decision the subject of an application under section 27 of this Act to be stayed by the Tribunal. 1. Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 does not apply in respect of a decision of the Tribunal under this Part. 1. A literal interpretation of "a risk assessment … to determine whether the applicant ….poses a risk to the safety of children", is not what is intended by the legislature because logically it is impossible to prove any adult does not pose some risk to the safety of children. 2. In Commission For Children and Young People –v- V [2002] NSWSC 949 Young CJ in Eq in considering s9(8) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, 1998, which required the Tribunal in similar proceedings under that legislation "not to make an order under this section unless it considers that the person the subject of the proposed order does not pose a risk to the safety of children". He held regarding the construction of the section: "One must not approach the matter on the basis that the sole criterion is to protect children from any possibility of abuse from a person who has been convicted of a serious sex offence". [At par 41] and [at par 42] "One does not define risk as meaning minimal risk. One would in any case as Mr Singleton has submitted, exclude fanciful or theoretical risk but what one is looking for is whether, in all the circumstances, there is a real and appreciable risk in the sense of a risk that is greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. One, however, must link the 'risk' with the words that follow, namely, 'to the safety of children'. The Seriousness of the offences with respect to which person is a disqualified person 1. The applicant and his solicitor and the solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions signed agreed facts which were tendered to the Local Court on the hearing of the criminal proceedings. 2. The relevant parts relating to the offences of which the applicant was convicted state as follows: 1. On a Saturday in May 2010, the residents of a house at South Coogee, had arranged a party at the residence, before going out for the evening. 2. One of the residents, [P], invited a group of male friends including the accused, [BKF]. [BKF] and three other males had travelled in from Western Sydney, and were to stay the night on the floor. They arrived at the residence about 6pm. Between 6pm and 11 pm, [BKF] and other persons at the party consumed alcohol and ate a small amount of finger food. [BKF] consumed between 6 and 8 375ml bottles of Tooheys Extra Dry over that period. 3. At about 11pm, [BKF] and a group of others caught taxis to a Paddington hotel. Between 11:30pm and 1:00am, the group socialized there and consumed alcohol. 4. VICTIM 2 and her boyfriend X, went to Surry Hills for dinner, before meeting the other group at the hotel at about 12am. 5. At about 1:00am, the majority of the group left the hotel and went to a bar. 6. At about 2am, VICTIM 2, the males P, H and Z, caught a taxi to the address at South Coogee. VICTIM 2 and her boyfriend X caught a separate cab back to those premises. VICTIM 2 and her boyfriend went to bed in her bedroom and fell asleep sometime after 3am. VICTIM 2 was naked in her bed. 7. [BKF], a female U, and a male T remained at the Fringe bar. Witnesses observed [BKF] to be intoxicated and speaking to an unknown female. When he arrived back at the residence, B phoned [BKF] to ascertain his whereabouts. [BKF] told B that he was with the girl from the Fringe Bar, and would leave soon. 8. On arrival at the residence, VICTIM 1, went straight to the bedroom where she was to share a mattress on the floor with her sister D. VICTIM 1 went to bed in the clothes she was wearing. She left the bedroom door slightly ajar, allowing some light to enter the room from the hallway. 9. At about 4am, B went to bed before being woken at about 4.30am, as [BKF] was ringing the front door bell. B pointed [BKF] in the direction of sleeping bags that were in the lounge room. 10. After 5am, [BKF] entered the bedroom where VICTIM 1 and her sister D were asleep on a mattress on the floor. D was lying on the side closest to the wall while VICTIM 1 was lying on the side closest to the door. 11. [BKF] then touched VICTIM 1 on the outside of her vagina. The complainant woke to the feeling of someone's fingers on her vagina underneath her underwear. VICTIM 1 was partly asleep at the time, and she was tired from being jet-lagged from a flight from London that day. She pushed the hands away from her vagina, but again felt the hands touching her on her stomach and around her waist. She continued to push the hands away. She then woke up completely and saw [BKF] lying next to her on the bed. She said to him, "Get away. Get off". [BKF] responded, "But this is my room". The complainant said, "Stop, I have a boyfriend" but [BKF] would not leave. The complainant pushed him onto the floor but would not leave. The complainant then managed to push him out of the bedroom. 12. At about 5:30am, [BKF] entered the bedroom where VICTIM 2 and her boyfriend were asleep. They were covered by a bed sheet. To enter the bedroom, [BKF] had to push a laundry basket which had been placed against the door in the room in order to provide them some privacy. 13. The VICTIM 2 awoke to the feeling of fingers touching her on the outside of her vagina. She observed that the bed sheets were completely off and sat up. She saw [BKF] sit up quickly, and observed that he was sitting at the end of the bed. The complainant said, "What are you doing?" [BKF] did not reply. The complainant's boyfriend pushed [BKF] off the bed and forced him out of the bedroom door. The complainant noticed a bottle of Tooheys beer on her bedside table which had not been there when she went to bed. 14. [BKF] then entered the bedroom of B, collected some of his belongings and left the premises. B recognised [BKF] as he collected his belongings. 15. After being told later that day by B that police wished to speak with him, [BKF] contacted Police and agreed to attend. He attended at the appointed time voluntarily and was placed under arrest and cautioned, before being taken into custody and explained his rights. He was offered the opportunity to participate in an electronically recorded interview with the police, to which he agreed. 16. [BKF] told police that he had consumed 2 schooners of Tooheys beer at a Leagues Club between 4pm and 5:45pm before, travelling with his friends by car to South Coogee. He said that he drank between 6 and 8 bottles of Tooheys Extra Dry at the house. He said that he had not eaten a meal since breakfast that day, but ate some nuts and a couple of pieces of finger food while at the house. 17. At 11pm [BKF] and some of the other people at the party, caught a taxi to the bar in Paddington. [BKF] told police that at this time he was starting to feel the effects of the alcohol he had consumed. He said he remembered entering the venue, but could not recall anything after that. The next thing he remembered was being on a train en route to Central station and feeling disoriented. He then received a call from B who told him that police were at the premises at South Coogee, that something had happened, and that [BKF] was involved. He told [BKF] that the police might be in contact with him. [BKF] said that on being told that, he started panicking. 18. He caught a train back to a western suburbs station and then changed a bus to further west. From there, he caught a cab to where he had left his car, collected his clothing, and then caught a cab to the bowling club, arriving at about 11 am. He then attended the annual meeting of the bowling club and afterwards tried to contact his parents without success. [BKF] then played in a competition lawn bowls game. After the game, his mother contacted him, collected him from the bowling club and drove him to a hospital where a urine sample was collected for analysis. [BKF] told police that he had no recollection of any incident at South Coogee, and believed that his drink may have been spiked. 19. Records from the hospital show that [BKF]'s urine sample was collected at about 5pm that day. Toxicology results show that no alcohol or drugs were detected in [BKF]'s urine. 20. Dr William Allender provided an expert statement in which he provided the opinion that if an individual had an alcohol level between 0.1 and 0.17grams per decalitre (100 millilitres) of blood, it would be completely eliminated from the body after a time interval of 11.5 hours. 1. The victims were adults. They were vulnerable because they were asleep. The Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 15 months suspended on the condition that he enter into and comply with a good behaviour bond with conditions that he be of good behaviour for 15 months, accept and comply with supervision by the probation and parole service for as long as the service considers necessary, obey all reasonable directions of the service for counselling, educational development or drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and perform 150 hours of community service. 2. The assaults were serious. Period of time since those offences occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred. 1. The applicant pleaded guilty to the 2 charges. At the time of the Tribunal decision, it was 5 years and 8 months since the offences and there was no other evidence of crime or misconduct by the applicant before or since the disqualifying offences. 2. He completed the community service and completed his bond without any breach of the conditions. 3. He attended on a psychologist, Sean Fraser. As at 6 July 2012 he had seen the applicant on 6 occasions. Mr Fraser, in his report of 6 July 2012 said that in his opinion the applicant had complied with therapeutic counselling and "willingly engaged even though his attendance was mandatory". He said that after 6 sessions he was confident in reporting that there were no indications that he had tenancies towards sexually inappropriate behaviour. He said "I am of the opinion that [BKF] greatly regrets his sexually inappropriate behaviour towards 2 women. I further believe that he has been forthright in reporting that he does not remember all aspects of the incident. Even though his memory of the events is limited, I believe his remorse is sincere and genuine. I do not believe that his behaviour towards the 2 victims is a reflection of abhorrent thinking or sexual deviance in [BKF]". 4. Mr Fraser reported that the applicant has completed a personality assessment and the results were consistent with his findings. The applicant had not endorsed any of the items that would suggest sexually inappropriate behaviour, and the results indicated also that he was answering in a forthright manner. 5. He reported that [BKF] "has on occasion used more alcohol that he is comfortable with. Over the 6 sessions, [BKF] has reported a significant reduction in his alcohol consumption behaviour, reporting that he does not drink during the week, and that his drinking on the weekends is now limited to 6 drinks maximum per weekend. He was forthright in reporting that for his brother's engagement party he consumed 8 drinks with family that related that the combination of the safe environment and the gravity of the celebration facilitated drinking above the norm. I do not believe that [BKF]'s alcohol consumption is of concern at this time". 6. Mr Fraser said that the applicant had a focus on further study and vocational interests, including teaching, personal training and dietician related studies. He said "I believe he is well suited to all of these fields and wish him all the best for his future direction". 7. He concluded that [BKF] "is not of concern to himself or others based on a combination of clinical findings and the results of psychometric assessment. I do not feel that there is any need for [BKF] to continue therapy with me and I have recommended his self-select with regard to seeking further treatment and feel that he is fully capable of asking for help if required". 8. The personality assessment inventory is in evidence. 9. In the pre-sentence report of 6 June 2011 of Mr Williams, the Probation and Parole Officer, he said: 1. "When asked about how he felt about what happened [BKF] said that he was shocked about what happened when told by his friends and then by police following a telephone call to them the next day. The offender said that there had not been a day gone by when he had not thought about what happened. He said it made him feel sick about what happened and he said that he takes responsibility that he put himself in this position, but this was out of character. He further said that he has deep regret and sorrow for the victims and he has thought about what happened to them, how they were coping, and what they and his family may be going through". 1. Mr Williams' opinion was that: 1. "[BKF] was co-operative and forthcoming with information he knew of this offence. It is with regret that the offender remains unclear about the events that took place, other than the facts provided to him. He clearly displays conscience about his actions and has displayed contrition in this matter. Both the offender and his mother report his behaviours as being out of character. There appears to be low risk of re-offence with the available information to the writer, and through the available assessment tool. 2. Taking into account all of the above information and incorporating a standardised risk / needs assessment process, the offender is suitable for a low level of intervention by this service, commensurate with the assessment. The individualised case plan would include strategies to address the following identified areas of criminogenic need: * Community risk assessment through Corrective Services, Forensic Psychology Services, and ongoing counselling through Forensic Psychology Services and / or psychological counselling. * Alcohol and other drugs – Alcohol counselling". 1. Mr Williams assessed the applicant as suitable for a Community Services Order (CSO). 2. There is evidence from the Australian College of Physical Education that the applicant was a student there from January 2007 to November 2011, and graduated with a degree of Bachelor of Education (Physical and Health Education) in May 2012. For 4 years while he was a student, the applicant had part time casual work on a mushroom farm. 3. He completed the Community Service Order by April 2012. 4. In his report of 8 September 2014, responding to questions posed to him by Dr Emma Collins, Mr Fraser reported he had 5 recorded sessions with [BKF] and:. Question 3: The content of treatment? Treatment focused on the psycho-education and cognitive behavioural strategies to both assess and address the anti-social nature of [BKF]s' behaviour. Treatment focused mostly on his immature behaviour and his disrespectful behaviour towards women and the associated abuse of alcohol. Question 4: Any discussions around the offending behaviour The offending behaviour formed the core of therapeutic intervention. I do not believe that [BKF] had clinically significant symptoms that warranted treatment for any other condition. He expressed significant remorse and shame over his behaviour. As part of therapy, he wrote a letter to the victims, that was not designed to be sent for legal reasons. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. Question 5: Were any difficulties encountered during his treatment (he was resistant, did not attend etc)? [BKF] always presented on time, and did not miss any sessions. His engagement was, in my opinion, sincere and appropriate for the severity of the situation. At no time did I find [BKF] resistant and he was compliant with all homework assignments. Question 6: Any other issues that may be of relevance. I am of the opinion that [BKF] behaved in an immature fashion, and that at the time of the offence, he was not aware of the magnitude of what he was doing and appeared to be operating in quite an immature fashion towards women and partying. I believe that one [BKF] became aware of the impact of his behaviour and how he had affected the lives of the women he offended, his mortification, regret and remorse' genuine and appropriate. I do not believe [BKF] shows traits of anti-social or sexually inappropriate behaviour. This belief system is supported by the results of the Personality Assessment Inventory (attached). I believe his current awareness with regards to his bad behaviour historically holds him in good stead to operate respectfully, responsibly and appropriately amongst women into the future. I do not believe there is any concern for a repeat of his behaviour. In addition, it should be noted that [BKF], at the time of our last session, had brought his drinking under control and appeared committed to not binge drinking from that point forward, given the abhorrent nature of his behaviour while intoxicated. I am unable to confirm whether [BKF] has maintained his control drinking, but at the time of our last session, his commitment appeared genuine. I have no concerns or hesitations in recommending [BKF]'s suitability for working with children". 1. On 27 January 2011, the applicant wrote the letter to the 2 victims of his assaults in May 2010 (referred to by Mr Frazer) in the following terms: "Dear Girls, Let me begin by mentioning that this letter is one that has been suggested that I write by my current psychologist. It is not one that I pen in the hope of finding peace with myself, nor is it one that I expect anything from in return, rather, it is what it is and I hope that you can take something from it. I write this in the nature of full disclosure and pray that these words can provide something privative for both of you looking forward. I cannot fully express just how sorry I am for my actions on that night. The pain and trauma that I must have caused you both is something that no person should ever have to endure in a thousand lifetimes. It is and will remain my deepest regret for the rest of my life. I do not expect forgiveness for what I have done, rather it is my hope that both of you go on to live happy and healthy lives filled with all the good that life has to offer. I again offer my sincerest and heartfelt apologies. Finally, I hope that you can find solace in the fact that ever since that day I have been working through my personal issues with the assistance of professional guidance. While this may come as little comfort personally, I hope that by knowing this fact and by knowing I have changed my behaviours and attitudes, that this will never happen to anyone else in the future. I know my word may not be worth a lot, but I can tell you that I have solemly (sic) sworn to never again place myself or others in that position. This will be my life's purpose. While I cannot give you an explanation or reason for my inexcusable actions of that night as it is something that I am still currently working through, know that it was certainly not my goal or ambition for things to eventuate as they have. Again the pain that I have caused to all involved is something that I can never fully understand or comprehend. All I can say is that I am truly sorry for all of it and take full responsibility and ownership of it. My actions will remain unforgiveable and one's (sic) that make me feel sick to this day. I can only imagine how it would feel in reverse. I hope that this letter may provide something, it is not for me to suggest what, but know that what I have caused you remains the greatest regret of my life and something that I am truly and deeply sorry. Sincerely [BKF]" 1. There is expert evidence from Associate Professor AF Moynaham of the Sydney Forensic Medicine and Science Network Department of Molecular and Clinical Genetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Professor Moynaham has given opinions in relation to the applicant's instructions to his solicitors that he, on the night of the offence, had consumed a large amount of alcohol and is unable to recall any of the offending behaviour. 2. Professor Moynaham says that memory loss can be one of the possible consequences of heavy consumption of alcohol. He says in his report: "…Pharmacologically alcohol is a substance which causes physiological and neurological depression. Its ability to diminish the senses has the potential to either partially or completely deny the entry of information to the brain. Under these circumstances memory of that information and any associated events may be either partially or totally non-existent. Alcohol primarily interferes with the ability to form new long-term memories, leaving intact previously established long-term memories and the ability to keep new information active in memory for brief periods (White). Large amounts of alcohol, especially if consumed rapidly, can produce partial or complete blackouts which are periods of memory loss which transpired while a person was consuming alcohol (White). There is a strong linear relationship between the blood alcohol concentration and the predicted probability of memory loss (Perry et al). It is probable that a person's tolerance to alcohol would determine the blood alcohol level at which possible memory loss was to occur. It is probable that a person with a strong tolerance to alcohol would require high blood alcohol level before memory loss would occur while a person with a poor tolerance to alcohol would require a lower blood alcohol level before memory loss would occur. Fragmentary blackouts can reflect the capacity of the brain to retrieve information about events which occurred during alcohol consumption at a time after cessation of drinking occurred (Hartzier et al). Some individuals may have a vulnerability to alcohol-induced memory impairments due to the effects of alcohol on contextual memory processes (Wetherill et al). Alcohol can have an impact on memory. It primarily disrupts the ability to form new long-term memories. Large amounts of alcohol, especially if consumed rapidly, can produce a blackout. A blackout could be regarded as a potential consequence of acute intoxication regardless of age. A blackout is also a potential consequence regardless of a person's clinical dependence on alcohol (White). It is not possible to give a firm opinion in this situation. There is much reported knowledge on the consumption of large amounts of alcohol which supports both en bloc and fragmentary memory loss as a consequence. It is possible that, as a consequence his state of intoxication by alcohol [BKF] may have no memory of the incident which took place in 2011. At the time of the event he would have to be in a situation where he was heavily intoxicated as a consequence of the consumption of a large amount of alcohol" 1. In his affidavit of 18 November 2014, the applicant gave evidence that he and his solicitors signed the agreed facts on 10 March 2011 and agreed to the other 2 offences being taken into account. He pleaded guilty to the offences on 5 April 2011, but indicated that the solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions as early as 10 March 2011 that he would accept responsibility. 2. He stated in that affidavit that he could not recall the offending behaviour, but he accepted that he did it. He said that his alcohol consumption included 6 – 8 bottles of Tooheys Extra Dry at the house before going to the licensed premises, and 2 schooners of Tooheys Old at the Leagues Club. He said that he could not recall how much alcohol he consumed at the licensed premises on that evening. He said "I acknowledge that my lack of recall of my offending behaviour does not excuse my behaviour" 3. He said: "16. Upon being informed of my offending behaviour I was quite shocked and sickened by my own behaviour. I state that this is something which is out of my character. 17. Upon being advised of my offending behaviour I was appalled that I could hurt someone else in such a way. I have always been brought up to respect other persons, and this is one of the reasons why I state my behaviour on the evening in question was out of character. 18. I'm sorry the victims were subjected to my offending behaviour on the evening in question, and continue to feel sorry for them to this date, knowing they did not consent to nor invite my behaviour on the evening in question" 1. The applicant first attended on Dr E Collins on 8 September 2014. His attendances were for the purpose of obtaining a risk assessment report. He underwent testing, and the report was issued on 17 September 2014. 2. As at 18 November 2014, the applicant was cohabiting with his partner [S] in an inner city suburb. At the time of his affidavit [S] was 26 years of age and the applicant was almost 28 years of age. The applicant had been working as a laborer with a bricklaying firm since March 2014, and prior to that employed as a farm hand with the mushroom company. He also had other part time work. 3. The applicant in his affidavit indicated his ambition was to teach in physical education. He has achieved a Bachelor of Physical and Health Education and a Diploma of Education to qualify him for teaching in Physical Education. 4. He has a longstanding interest in sport. He has played representative cricket and has coached young students in cricket. 5. In 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, he undertook practical experience teaching at 4 different schools. 6. His sporting interests include AFL, golf, lawn bowls, and soccer. His main interest is cricket and he has played cricket since he was a young boy. He has coached junior teams in 2004, 2005 and 2006 for his cricket club and coached in a metropolitan cricket competition for the same club. He progressed in 2010 from coaching to umpiring and as at November 2014 he had been coaching on some Saturdays when he was not playing cricket himself for the cricket club. When asked by parents he often volunteered to coach their children in cricket. 7. The Police Department has reported that there has been no restraining order or apprehended violence order made against the applicant. 8. BH, a physical education teacher of 30 years, has sworn an affidavit of 28 November 2014 in support of the applicant in the proceedings. He is known to the applicant through the cricket club as he himself played cricket through the club for 30 years and has served on the committee as president since July 2014. He has known the applicant since he was 15 years of age and knew his family through those connections. The applicant's father is a scorer for the 1st grade team. 9. BH gave evidence of the applicant talking to him about the offence. In that evidence he said: 10. When I spoke with [BKF], he mentioned to me words to the effect: "This has torn me apart" He also said: "I never imagined that I could do something like this". 11. When [BKF] was telling me about this, I discussed the circumstances of the offence and how he felt and I recall nearing the end of our conversation he broke down crying and was physically sobbing and distraught as a result of all of this. I ended up giving him a hug and we then went and played a game of pool. When I saw [BKF] physically distraught, I really felt for him because I can see that he wants to be a Teacher and I can see how his actions have affected him 12. When [BKF] told me about this, I was surprised that he could have done something of this nature. The [BKF] I know and detail in this affidavit it is certainly not the person who I would imagine committing such an offence. 1. BH has seen [BKF] play cricket over the years and also develop into a coach as well as player. He has seen him coaching and interacting with numerous age groups and a large number of boys aged 15 years up to young men aged 20 and older. 2. At all times he has found [BKF]'s behaviour to be "age appropriate, role appropriate, and what you would expect an individual to do when they are teaching children and young men. I found him to be a good role model". 3. He also had the opportunity to observe [BKF] doing practicum experience at the school where BH was teaching. On 1 occasion they "team taught" BH's class. He reported "I found [BKF] to be professional in his presentation and as I have noted previously his presentation was role appropriate. I would describe him as a talented presenter and, nearing the end of this presentation, he took over the role as teacher in the lesson. I found the students were very responsive to him as a teacher". 1. He concluded his affidavit with the following evidence: 17. "I have stated above that I find [BKF]'s behaviour is totally out of character of the [BKF] that I know. I do note that these offences were alleged to have occurred against adult women. I can state in all the time that I have seen [BKF], I have seen him interact with numerous children, whether it be in his role as a cricket coach, competitor or in his practicum experience. I am firmly of the opinion that [BKF] is of no danger to children. 18. I have seen [BKF]'s offending behaviour has had an effect on [BKF] and it has become more apparent since he disclosed this to me. As a consequence of the way he has reacted to his own actions, I have seen him become withdrawn and not as confident as what he used to be. Since disclosing these offences to me, I have taken a role as a mentor with a number of other senior members of the cricket club to discuss with him and to help guide him through these troubled times and to help him move forward so he can be a better person. 19. I have no hesitation in stating [BKF] is an appropriate person to obtain a Working With Children Clearance The age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred 1. [BKF] was 23 years of age. The age of each victim of any relevant offence of conduct at the time the offences or matters occurred, and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim 1. Victim 1 – 18 years of age. Victim 2 – 26 years of age. 2. The ages of the victims of the 2 offences taken into account by the court were not in evidence, but both of those victims were adults. 3. All four (4) victims were asleep at the time the assaults commenced and therefore vulnerable. The difference in age between the victim(s) and the person(s) and the relationship (if any) between the victim(s) and the person(s) 1. On the evidence it appears that [BKF] had not met any of the 4 victims until that night. He was not related to any of them and did not have any established friendship with any of them. Whether the person knew or could reasonably have known that the victim was a child 1. None of the victims was a child. The person's present age 1. [BKF] at the time of the decision was 29 years of age. The seriousness of the person's total criminal record and the conduct of the person since the offences occurred 1. The criminal record of [BKF] comprises the 2 convictions with 2 offences taken into account. All of them occurred on the same night. 2. For a person of 29 years of age, and given the nature of the offences, this total criminal record is not serious. The likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition 1. The impact on a child of a sexual assault, such as the assaults committed by [BKF] on the occasion in question, would be serious. It would possibly cause a child to have long term mistrust of adults, considerable stress, confusion of sexual issues, and other long term adverse emotional effects. 2. As to the likelihood of repetition, Dr Collins is a Forensic Psychiatrist who has considerable expertise and experience in preparing risk assessments assessing the risk of a sexual offender committing further sexual offences. This includes her experience in making predictions as to the risk of an offender sexually assaulting a child. 3. Dr Collins saw [BKF] initially on 8 September 2014 and then had discussions with him by telephone subsequently on 12 September 2014. Her first report is dated 17 September 2014. 4. She had a "semi-structured clinical interview" and psychometric testing assessment lasting 2 ½ hours, and subsequently the telephone conversation. She found that [BKF] responded to questions "in a detailed and thoughtful manner" and displayed "good intellectual skills, and maintained appropriate conversation and eye contact throughout". 5. She said there was "a logical order to the flow of ideas. His mood appeared adequate, but he became distressed on occasions during the interview when discussing his prior offending. Nonetheless, he displayed varied affect over the course of the assessment. There was no overt psycho-pathology that affected his capacity to participate in the assessment, including psychotic disturbance". 6. Dr Collins was provided with various documents, including the agreed facts placed before the court, the criminal history of [BKF], Parole Report of 17 June 2011, the Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report of 19 August 2011, and email communications and the report from Mr Sean Fraser dated 12 & 15 September 2014. 7. She reported on what [BKF] told her about his sexual history: "[BKF] advised that he became sexually aware around 15 years old when he began to engage in regular masturbation. He reported that he accessed heterosexual adult pornography for stimulation, which continued up until he was approximately 18 years old. He advised that he first engaged in sexual intercourse at 16 with a female a couple of years older than he. [BKF] estimated that he has a high number of heterosexual partners, in excess of 80 – 100, all of which represent casual liaisons. He said that 2 sexual partners were casual but ongoing liaisons. All other partners were met out on social engagements. He stated that all were of a similar age to him at the time" 1. She reported that he also said that he has "an average libido" and that he would engage in sexual activity intermittently, commensurate with his sexual urges. He denied a regular engagement in masturbation and it is evident that [BKF]'s sexual needs were met through casual liaisons". He said that he tended to avoid significant relationships, stating he was scared and did not want to "let others get too close". But he said that this had changed and that he had been in a significant relationship since March 2014. 2. Dr Collins reported: "He described a strong attachment to his current partner who is aware of his offending history. As mentioned earlier, he advised that they planned to move in together and he said that he can see a long-term future with his partner". 1. He told Dr Collins that he was engaging in sexual activity with his partner approximately 3 times per week. He denied ever engaging the services of sex workers, any unconventional sexual interests or practices, including voyeurism, fetishes or paraphilias. He denied any sexual interest in children. He endorsed sexual attitudes which were in line with consenting practices. 2. [BKF] told Dr Collins that he began consuming alcohol at about 17 or 18 years of age "in a pattern of binge drinking with peers". He said he consumed around 10 – 12 drinks on a weekend night every few weeks. He said that this continued until the offences of which he was convicted. After that, he engaged on sporadic occasions of excessive drinking while the court proceedings were ongoing. On one occasion he passed out and a friend advised him to address his drinking problem. He claimed that he has not engaged in heavy consumption since his sentencing. He said he currently drank about 2 or 3 glasses of wine a couple of times a week with his partner. 3. Dr Collins also reported: "[BKF] also admitted to a period of illicit drug experimentation during his court proceedings. He endorsed an infra-nasal use of cocaine up to a dozen times, and a few occasions of ecstasy use in mid-2011. He denied any lasting use once his sentencing matter was resolved". 1. He told Dr Collins that following his arrest and conviction he had struggled with "significant shame and rumination related to how his actions affected his family. [BKF] believed that he was depressed for a period thereafter and endorsed experiencing sadness, feelings of reduced worth, invariable appetite, sleep and energy patterns". 2. He told Dr Collins that his low mood abated over time and following sentencing. He said he had no reasonable disturbance to his mood. 3. He completed a personality assessment inventory, included a number of validity indexes designed to highlight factors that could distort the results. 4. Dr Collins reported that: "His approach to the questionnaire indicates that he presented himself so favourably as to invalidate the profile. No interpretation can be based on the results". 1. Despite that result, she said that he did not present "with any current symptoms of a major mental disorder". 2. For purposes of the assessment of risk for reoffending, Dr Collins used the STATIC-99 tool. The tool involves the use of STATIC risk variables and dynamic variables. In relation to the STATIC variables, he scored for never having lived with a partner for 2 years or more, stranger victim, and an unrelated victim. Those scores placed him in the moderate-low risk category. 3. Based on dynamic factors of no anti-social history and relatively good adjustment in the community, she formed the opinion that he would be in the moderate-low risk category. 4. She also used the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) tool to assess his risk. That is a clinical judgment tool that assesses static and dynamic factors. 5. She found that there were a series of 11 protective factors on which he scored including as follows: * He reportedly has no other criminal convictions; * [BKF] has maintained consistent employment; * He reports moderating his prior substance abuse issues; * No history of child abuse; * No overt indicators of sexual deviance; * There is no evidence of sexual violence with regards to the index offences; * [BKF] reports a prosocial support network; * He does not meet criteria for a major mental disorder; * No evidence of psychopathy; * He has successfully completed supervision (with Probation and Parole) * Prior successful engagement in treatment, albeit short-term. 1. She also said that there were 5 factors that increased the risk of reoffence which were: * [BKF] committed the offences in a short period of time with more than one victim; * Alcohol use was a factor with regards to the offending; * He maintains no recollection of the offences, hence minimizing his responsibility taking; * He has a history of intimacy deficits, marked by having his sexual needs met through casual liaisons, albeit he has been in a longer term relationship of late; * [BKF] describes being an emotionally private person, which could impact on upon self-awareness. 1. On that basis, the RSVP tool assessed him moderate-low risk of sexual recidivism. 2. She said "he was intoxicated at the time of the offences and maintained a somewhat hedonist lifestyle with a strong focus on sexual gratification through casual relationships. Whilst he continues to deny the offences, it seems that his sexual behaviour was consistent with seeking out sexual gratification perhaps with an assumption that his advances to the victims would be met positively. To this end, [BKF] showed a disregard for females, which according to his prior treating psychologist, was a factor that was satisfactorily addressed in treatment" 3. Dr Collins referred to the fact that risk issues relevant to [BKF] included intoxication and seeking out casual relationships. She said that in her opinion those 2 issues were not immediate risk factors in that he was now in a stable relationship had reported moderating his substance use. Also, his poor attitude displayed toward females was another risk issue, but was reportedly addressed during treatment. 4. Dr Collins concluded her first report as follows: 39. Summary and Recommendations: [BKF] is a 28-year-old male who is seeking an enabling order so as to pursue his desired career as a physical education teacher. He was convicted in August 2011 for indecently assaulting two females during a night of drinking. He reports no recollection of the offences. 40. [BKF] described a positive and supportive upbringing with a strong focus on sports during his schooling years. He had almost finished a bachelor of physical education at the time of the index offences and he worked at a local farm and a labourer thereafter. He reports consistently maintaining employment. [BKF] has a history of intimacy deficits and having his sexual needs met through casual liaisons whilst out drinking. The offence occurred in the context of seeking out sexual gratification whilst intoxicated, and perhaps due to this confidence with regards to sexual relationships, there was an incorrect assumption that his sexual advances would be met favorably by the victims. 41. Mr. Fraser, treating psychologist, reports that [BKF] engaged well in treatment, which focused on his hedonistic lifestyle and attitudes towards females. However, I note that this was very brief treatment and less than is typically required for low risk offenders. [BKF] has reportedly reduced his binge drinking and continues to endorse a minor and occasional use of alcohol. He has also recently engaged in a prosocial significant relationship. Other than a period of self-medicating with substances and depression further to his arrest, [BKF] does not impress with any major mental health issues, although I note he said that he is an emotionally private individual who tends to keep issues to himself. 42. Overall, [BKF]'s sexual reoffending risk is assessed to fall in the moderate-low range. Whilst it is positive that he reportedly has remained offending free, he has a history of intimacy deficits that have only recently improved. Further, his minimization of the index offences due to his reportedly poor recollection is a risk factor that is unlikely to change. Further risk scenarios that may apply in [BKF]'s case would likely involve a return to his prior lifestyle, by way of binge drinking and seeking to have his sexual needs met through casual liaisons. However, this does not necessarily translate into a specific risk towards children. 1. In the period of the adjournment of the hearing, [BKF] implemented the recommendations of Dr Collins. 2. Dr Collins provided a second report of 26 August 2015. She noted that [BKF]'s defacto relationship has dissolved in January 2015. He was currently employed in a "flooring sales business" and this involved working long hours. He continued to engage in team sports at the weekends and had suffered some injuries which limited his involvement. 3. She reported that he remained close to his parents, sister and brothers, and had maintained regular contact with friends. He had a reasonable pro-social support system. He was no longer in any long-term relationship, although he had "attended on a few dates". 4. Dr Collins said the counselling with [BKF] focused on his relationship functioning and assisting him in setting goals about future relationships and values. He had not had any sexual partners since his defacto relationship ended. 5. He had been abstinent from the use of alcohol since the beginning of the year. The importance of managing alcohol use was discussed in treatment. Dr Collins concluded that he had "no major substance abuse issues". 6. His treatment from Dr Collins commenced at the end of February 2015 and had generally involved him attending on a weekly basis. He had attended 18 sessions by the time the therapy concluded. She said: "[BKF] has participated in well in treatment; whilst anxious when counseling first commenced, he has impressed as honest and open about issues raised. I commend how he has utilized treatment to date, particularly given his long work hours and difficulty travelling to the city for afternoon sessions with myself. [BKF] has undertaken all tasks requested, both in and out of session". 1. Dr Collins said that the defacto relationship had been ended by [BKF]'s partner and "whilst the union was a positive one, the decision to end it was in fact in [BKF]'s best interests. That is, treatment has allowed him to see the relationship in less idealistic terms and to help prioritise his needs in any future relationship so that a mutual compromise is reached". 2. She said that the treatment had focused on "open communication in relationships, personal disclosures, as well as being vulnerable, to safe levels, when meeting new partners. This was a critical issue for [BKF] historically, in that he attempted to protect himself from others by keeping relationships at a physical level. Over the course of current treatment [BKF] has been able to practice the above on a few dates that he has attended. He has significantly matured in his relationship functioning, partly due to therapy, but also due to the influence of his first significant relationship". 3. Dr Collins also reported that another target had been to improve the emotional functioning of [BKF], his general openness, and enhanced coping strategies. She assisted him to utilise "pro-social coping mechanisms (eg relaxation) versus self-medicating with alcohol use". She said that he had been able to return to controlled alcohol use without engaging in any psychological harms when drinking. 4. Dr Collins also reported: "it has become apparent during therapy that a critical factor in [BKF]'s self-and world view is self-sacrificing: that is, putting the needs of others before his own. This is evidenced in his over-commitment in relationships, friendships, work roles and sports themes. Whilst this may not appear hugely problematic per se, it has been important for [BKF] to set goals for himself so that he is not taken for granted by others, which can in some cases lead to increased feelings of vulnerability, stress and poor coping". 1. She said that a range of specific offence related strategies have been undertaken as part of his treatment, and particularly good life planning, and evidence-based model that involves understanding pro-offending patterns and values, and replacing those with "good lives, values and goals". There were also strategies about safety planning which identifies risk issues, accountability for his behaviour and future goals. He said that he had worked through this and written up a safety plan. 2. She also said that the treatment had focused on [BKF] "having intimacy needs met through mutually satisfying relationships, not purely based on sex". She said "he has achieved well in this regard" and said that he had set goals about future relationships. She said that he had also addressed (and continues to address) his alcohol use and had moderated it significantly. He had also avoided using alcohol in a self-medicative or harmful way". 3. Dr Collins found that [BKF] engaged well in the treatment. She said that while he continues to work on being more open with others, she has found him to be emotionally exposed and insightful during their treatment sessions. 4. She said: "moreover, the content of the issues discussed in therapy has revealed some good emotional coping strategies that [BKF] should continue to draw upon. As a consequence of working on these dynamic risk factors he has reduced his prior moderate-low rating. Current re-assessment of risk places him within the low range". 1. Dr Collins concluded that after the 6 months of treatment, many of the dynamic risk factors of [BKF] had been addressed, and his current risk rating had been reduced to low. She said that he could continue treatment for a few more sessions, but "he has undertaken the major components, and I am satisfied with his progress to date. To this end, all of the primary areas of offence-specific treatment have been targeted and risk issues reduced accordingly". 2. His affidavit sworn 14 October 2015, [BKF] annexed a copy of the second report of Dr Collins and he swore that the contents of the report were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He said (that by then) he had attended 19 – 20 sessions for treatment, and he described the issues addressed as: 1. Risk factors in relation to offending behaviour; 2. Relationship functioning; and 3. Improving emotional functioning; and 4. Enhancing coping strategies. 1. He said that the treatment had been "very helpful" and that he had felt more confident in his relationships with other people and more understanding of the need for him to have a more open relationship "in terms of emotional dialogue and allowing myself to be vulnerable when meeting new potential partners or relationships with other persons". 2. He said that the treatment "has assisted me in being able to identify these issues and allowed me to then move forward by way of being more open and personable in any potential relationship". He said that the treatment had given him "a lot of insight in relation to my own behaviour" and he intended to continue the treatment. 3. In his affidavit he said that he was presently residing with his parents in their home, and is currently single. His employment with the flooring company had ended and he was presently working on labouring jobs on a casual basis with a number of companies. He repeated his desire to obtain employment as a teacher in physical education and predicted that he will "benefit and assist" children in achieving their potential through his experiences in representing his community and through his education. 4. Dr Collins was cross examined at length on 28 January 2015 and for an hour on 25 January 2016. The Tribunal found no reason why Dr Collins' evidence and opinions could not be relied upon. Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application 1. These matters have already been discussed. Any other matters that the Children's Guardian considers necessary 1. On the night of the offences, and at the same location, the applicant assaulted each of 2 other women with an act of indecency, and those 2 matters were taken into account in the decision of the Court in sentencing the applicant. 2. The act of indecency in relation to the third victim A described in the agreed facts as: 1. At about 5am, A woke up and saw [BKF] lying under the sheets next to her. She said to him, "What are you doing here?" [BKF] replied "I'm attracted to you and I know you've got a boyfriend." A said "I've got a boyfriend and nothing is going to happen." She then turned her back on the accursed. She felt [BKF] run his hand down the left side of her torso touching her on her ribcage area, on the outside of her clothes. 2. At this time, A's phone rang, and she reached over [BKF] to grab it and left the bedroom. She returned a short time later and [BKF] was still in her bed. She told him to leave. 3. [BKF] left the room, only to open the door a short time later and put his head around the door. A said, "Please leave." [BKF] did so, only to return a short time later, again opening the door saying, "B B." A said, "B's not here." [BKF] left the bedroom and did not return. 1. The description in the agreed facts of the fourth assault is that after [BKF] left the bedroom of A, he entered the bedroom where D and her sister VICTIM 1 were asleep on a mattress on the floor. He got into the bed between them, lifted D's jumper waking her. He then again attempted to lift D's jumper another 2 or 3 times and tried to touch her on the stomach. She said "Get out. What are you doing here?". She pushed him to the end of the bed, before she fell asleep. 2. The evidence disclosed no other conviction or charge against the applicant, before or after those already described arising from his conduct on that one night in May 2010. 3. In closing submissions, Ms Neville, counsel for the respondent, submitted the coping strategies referred to by Dr Collins have not been fully developed and have not been tested by a longer term relationship. She argued that the applicant remains a private person, struggling to be open in seeking help. She submitted that he has now a lack of personal, individual coping strategies, and an over-reliance on sport and communication abilities that are still a work in progress. She said that generally his strategies remain untested by a longer term relationship. 4. However, Dr Collins' conclusion that the applicant is low risk takes into account the knowledge of his development of strategies and coping abilities. It is her expert opinion using 2 of the available tools that the risk is low. Conclusions 1. The Tribunal therefore concluded that [BKF] does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children and there should be enabling orders. Privacy 1. To protect the privacy of the applicant and any victim of an offence to which the applicant was convicted or was taken into account by the Local Court, there needed to be an order prohibiting publication or broadcast of the name or other identifying information of that person. Orders 1. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal were: 1. The applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the offences of "Assault With act of Indecency" of which he was convicted by the Local Court Downing Centre in August 2011. 2. The Children's Guardian must grant the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance; and 3. The publication or broadcast of the name or other identifying information of the applicant or any victim of the offences of which he was convicted (or of any offences taken into account) by the Local Court when the conviction occurred, is prohibited. 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 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 01 December 2016