BMC v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 79

BMC v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 79

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The applicant's conviction, while serious, was not against a child. She demonstrated longstanding abstinence from drugs, successful rehabilitation, stable family and community relationships, and positive psychological and employment assessments. Therefore, the correct and preferable decision was to grant her a working with children check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Final Decision
Outcome
Decision of the respondent set aside; respondent to grant applicant a working with children check clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'murder Conviction' 'administrative Review']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'equal Opportunity'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'murder Conviction' '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

Application for Review / Final Decision

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 decision to refuse a working with children check clearance should be set aside']

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The applicant's conviction, while serious, was not against a child. She demonstrated longstanding abstinence from drugs, successful rehabilitation, stable family and community relationships, and positive psychological and employment assessments. Therefore, the correct and preferable decision was to grant her a working with children check clearance.

Court Disposition

Decision of the respondent set aside; respondent to grant 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.']