BKX v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 155

BKX v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 155

The 2007 trigger event was serious because it involved the applicant hitting a vulnerable nine-year old disabled child while engaged in child-related work and causing bleeding. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant acted in self-defence, found that he had not properly recognised or acknowledged his role and behaviour and continued to blame others, and considered this ongoing failure to raise concerns about a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The refusal of the clearance was therefore the correct and preferred decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision to Refuse an Application for a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The decision of the respondent is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'safety of Children' 'administrative Review']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'safety of Children' 'administrative Review']

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 a Decision to Refuse an Application for a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing

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 the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children by reason of the 2007 trigger event and other matters raised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 2007 trigger event was serious because it involved the applicant hitting a vulnerable nine-year old disabled child while engaged in child-related work and causing bleeding. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant acted in self-defence, found that he had not properly recognised or acknowledged his role and behaviour and continued to blame others, and considered this ongoing failure to raise concerns about a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The refusal of the clearance was therefore the correct and preferred decision.

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent is affirmed.

Orders

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