Children’s Guardian v BQJ [2016] NSWSC 869

Children’s Guardian v BQJ [2016] NSWSC 869

The appeal was dismissed because none of the alleged errors of law was established. Section 30(1)(a) required the Tribunal to consider the seriousness of the trigger offences and matters, not necessarily to determine on the balance of probabilities every alleged acquitted offence, and the Tribunal's reasons showed that it did consider the manslaughter, common assaults and alleged indecent assault. The obscene phone call allegation was not a matter that caused the refusal or interim bar. The Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent did not pose a risk to children was not Wednesbury unreasonable given substantial countervailing evidence of more than three decades without violent or sexual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From a Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Granting a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'risk Assessment for Child Related Work' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'anonymisation of Child Criminal Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'civil Appeals'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'risk Assessment for Child Related Work' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'anonymisation of Child Criminal Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From a Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Granting a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred under s 30(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 by failing to determine for itself whether the respondent had committed alleged conduct of which he had been acquitted.' "Whether the Tribunal's finding that the respondent did not pose a risk to the safety of children was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have made it." 'Whether the Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for finding that the respondent had rehabilitated and did not pose a risk to children.' "Whether the Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for accepting and relying on character references where some references did not disclose awareness of the details of the respondent's criminal history."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the alleged errors of law was established. Section 30(1)(a) required the Tribunal to consider the seriousness of the trigger offences and matters, not necessarily to determine on the balance of probabilities every alleged acquitted offence, and the Tribunal's reasons showed that it did consider the manslaughter, common assaults and alleged indecent assault. The obscene phone call allegation was not a matter that caused the refusal or interim bar. The Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent did not pose a risk to children was not Wednesbury unreasonable given substantial countervailing evidence of more than three decades without violent or sexual...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.']