BJR v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 84

BJR v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 84

Although the likelihood of the applicant reoffending violently was low and there were substantial factors in his favour, the trigger offence and the circumstances leading to it were extremely serious, the applicant had a lifetime diagnosis of Major Depression, the Tribunal was not persuaded by his confidence that he would recognise and seek help for any recurrence, and a clearance could not be limited to his current online work but would authorise any child-related work including direct contact with young children. Given the paramount consideration of the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the low risk was sufficient to find that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / External Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
The decision of the respondent is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'manslaughter Conviction After Diminished Responsibility' 'paramount Consideration of Safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'manslaughter Conviction After Diminished Responsibility' 'paramount Consideration of Safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children']

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 Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / External Review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance was the correct and preferred decision." 'Whether, having regard to the factors in subsection 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 and the paramount consideration of the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the likelihood of the applicant reoffending violently was low and there were substantial factors in his favour, the trigger offence and the circumstances leading to it were extremely serious, the applicant had a lifetime diagnosis of Major Depression, the Tribunal was not persuaded by his confidence that he would recognise and seek help for any recurrence, and a clearance could not be limited to his current online work but would authorise any child-related work including direct contact with young children. Given the paramount consideration of the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the low risk was sufficient to find that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of...

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent is affirmed.

Orders

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