BHL v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 46

BHL v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 46

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, having regard to the seriousness of the sustained misconduct findings involving a 17 year old student while the applicant was in a position of authority, the applicant's lack of insight and failure to address the substance and effect of the misconduct, and the inadequacy of the evidence relied on to address those concerns, it was satisfied that the applicant presently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children if placed in child-related work.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Determination
Outcome
The decision of the respondent the subject of review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'misconduct Involving Children' 'teacher Student Sexual Relationship' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'misconduct Involving Children' 'teacher Student Sexual Relationship' 'protective Jurisdiction']

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

Administrative Review of Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' "Whether the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's working with children check clearance was the correct and preferable decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because, having regard to the seriousness of the sustained misconduct findings involving a 17 year old student while the applicant was in a position of authority, the applicant's lack of insight and failure to address the substance and effect of the misconduct, and the inadequacy of the evidence relied on to address those concerns, it was satisfied that the applicant presently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children if placed in child-related work.

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent the subject of review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent the subject of review is affirmed.']