A woman who faked a cancer diagnosis and deceived the public into donating money to her, has been refused a blue card on account of her dishonesty.
“VT” challenged a decision by the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that her case was not “exceptional” within the meaning of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
In a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision delivered in Bundaberg last week, Member Hemingway affirmed the decision, saying the best interests of children would be harmed if a positive notice was issued to VT.
VT’s scam lasted three years and eight months, and she was convicted in May 2019 of fraud-dishonestly gaining a benefit/advantage (between April 2016 and July 2017), and forgery (January 2018). She was sentenced to six months imprisonment, fully suspended for a period of two years.
VT applied for a blue card in November 2021, in a bid to work in children’s sport. Her application was refused in October 2023 after consideration of her criminal history and submissions.
That history involved pretending to have a rare and incurable cancer, raising money for herself through public trivia and movie night fundraisers. She appeared at the events with a shaved head, and sometimes in hospital clothing and a wheelchair.
When the deception was discovered by police, VT admitted that she had never had cancer and pleaded guilty to the charges.
VT said she and her husband would use the money to travel to Brisbane once a month and she would pretend to have chemotherapy. She claimed that instead, she would wait in the hospital foyer and buy toys for sick children.
“The applicant stated that she perpetrated the hoax because when she was sick, the family would bond together and not fight,” Member Hemingway said.
“The applicant admitted forging a letter to her husband’s employer for the purpose of claiming leave for him on compassionate grounds. The letter contained a fictitious name of an oncologist (who was not able to be located) to substantiate her claim of her having cancer.”
In her appeal, VT submitted she was entitled to a blue card because her life had changed, in that she had a “good marriage”, had support networks, was continuing therapy, had not re-offended, and had accepted responsibility for her actions and decisions.
The department submitted that VT’s evidence was unreliable, and Member Hemingway said the tribunal observed that VT had selective recall and her evidence lacked consistency.
“The respondent observed that the applicant’s evidence appeared to be improbable, implausible and unconvincing e.g. her husband did not know she lied about the cancer and that it would be a lie to tell others she was in remission to end the deception and that it would be difficult for her to tell her husband the truth and have him believe her,” she said.
“The respondent then submits that the applicant claimed to not know much about cancer. However, she shaved her head, appeared in public in a sickly condition, wore a hospital gown, appeared in a wheelchair and went to Brisbane monthly for supposed chemotherapy.”
The department submitted that VT showed a lack of regard for others and would not be deterred from further conduct, pointing to factors including her willingness to engage in calculated behaviour intended to deceive; her willingness to lie, exploit and take advantage of others for personal attention or acknowledgement; and her willingness to continue the deception for such a long period.
It submitted that the nature and gravity of the offending itself was exceptional.
Member Hemingway said none of VT’s referees acknowledged the psychological and financial harm caused by the deception. Further, VT had taken no steps to locate victims of the fraud and repay them.
She said VT’s explanations lacked consistency and candour, and that she showed no remorse for her actions, apart from how they had affected her.
“The tribunal found her lack of candour to be deliberately misleading and indicative of a clear absence of insight or concern into the effect of her deception upon others,” she said.
“The applicant states her reason for commencing the deception and fraudulent activity was to prevent family discord and in particular because of her sister’s threatened suicide.
“Of itself this reasoning deflects responsibility onto others and demonstrates the applicant’s belief that she commenced and continued the deception to help others and that in a sense she is the actual victim of events beyond her control.
“This deflection of blame extends to her husband, whom she says was instrumental in collecting and managing funds, but who was unaware of her deceit.
“This line of argument, which she continued to maintain in the hearing, shows clearly that she has not accepted responsibility despite claiming to have done so but justifies her conduct as acting protectively towards her family.”
Member Hemingway said the tribunal found VT’s conduct to be duplicitous.
“The applicant shows one face to the world, whilst holding private views where she is prepared to lie and scam, views that are not appropriate for a person guiding children,” she said.
“The applicant lived a secret life in which her true activities, deceitful conduct and scamming money were concealed from family and friends.
“She offers little credible explanation for her actions; other than rationalisations that she was helping out others.
“Children have a right to expect that the adults guiding and assisting them are people with their best interests at heart and not people who will exploit a situation placing children at risk of harm.”
Member Hemingway found the VT’s “propensity to lie and deceive for financial gain in this particular context (publicly feigning a life-threatening illness) poses an unacceptable risk to children placed in her care”.
“The tribunal finds that this is an exceptional case based on the actions of the applicant,” she said.
“Her attitude and continuing beliefs demonstrate an absence of insight and clearly show a lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for children indicating to this tribunal that she poses an unacceptable risk to children, such that she should not be given a blue card.”
Share this article