BJV v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 26

BJV v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 26

The Tribunal found that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The expert assessment placed the risk above low and in the low/moderate range, and that assessment depended on protective assumptions that may have been incorrect. If the assessment allowed for the possibility that the applicant committed the alleged 2009 sexual offence and falsely denied it, the risk outcome would have been higher. Having considered the statutory factors and the material before it, the Tribunal held that the correct and preferable decision was to refuse the Working with Children Check Clearance and confirmed the Children's Guardian's decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Application for Review of the Children's Guardian's Decision Refusing Clearance
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance was confirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'acquitted or Dismissed Charges' 'apprehended Violence Order' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'acquitted or Dismissed Charges' 'apprehended Violence Order' 'publication Restriction']

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 / Hearing of Application for Review of the Children's Guardian's Decision Refusing Clearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the correct and preferable decision was to confirm or set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal of a Working with Children Check Clearance." 'Whether the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children within the meaning of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'How the Tribunal should assess the relevance of dismissed criminal charges, alleged sexual conduct toward a vulnerable adult, alleged intimidation, mental health history, alleged harassment of a former partner, and expert risk assessment evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The expert assessment placed the risk above low and in the low/moderate range, and that assessment depended on protective assumptions that may have been incorrect. If the assessment allowed for the possibility that the applicant committed the alleged 2009 sexual offence and falsely denied it, the risk outcome would have been higher. Having considered the statutory factors and the material before it, the Tribunal held that the correct and preferable decision was to refuse the Working with Children Check Clearance and confirmed the Children's Guardian's decision.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance was confirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian of 3 June 2014 refusing the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance is confirmed." 'Publication or broadcast of the names or other identifying information of the applicant, or either of the persons referred to in these reasons as "V" or as the applicant\'s former...