BLU v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 41

BLU v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 41

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children. Although his behaviour crossed professional boundaries and was at times unprofessional, the evidence supported a reasonable non-sexual explanation for the conduct, there was no evidence of sexual intention or grooming, there had been no reported misconduct since 2010, and the expert evidence of Dr Baron was that the applicant did not pose any real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant the clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Review Under S27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012
Outcome
The decision of the respondent is set aside and the respondent is to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'sexual Misconduct' 'grooming Behaviour' 'crossing Professional Boundaries' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'sexual Misconduct' 'grooming Behaviour' 'crossing Professional Boundaries' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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 / Review Under S27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of s18(2) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' "Whether the applicant's past conduct amounted to grooming behaviour or sexual misconduct involving children." 'Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse or grant a working with children check clearance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children. Although his behaviour crossed professional boundaries and was at times unprofessional, the evidence supported a reasonable non-sexual explanation for the conduct, there was no evidence of sexual intention or grooming, there had been no reported misconduct since 2010, and the expert evidence of Dr Baron was that the applicant did not pose any real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant the clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent is set aside and the respondent is to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent is set aside.' 'Pursuant to s18(2) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the respondent is to grant the applicant a working with children check clearance.']