BNM v The Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 179

BNM v The Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 179

The applicant's inconsistent and unreliable evidence, lack of acknowledgement or regret, incomplete disclosure to the psychologist, the credible and serious allegations by his former wife, the common assault conviction, relationship conflict history, and uncertainty about his full criminal history established on the balance of probabilities a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the Working with Children Check Clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Application Filed 22 October 2014 Under S 27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed; the application is otherwise refused and dismissed; publication of identifying information is prohibited.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'administrative Review' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'administrative Review' '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 Decision Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Application Filed 22 October 2014 Under S 27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Children's Guardian's refusal to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance was the correct and preferable decision." 'Whether the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' "What weight should be given to the applicant's evidence, the former wife's statements, references, and psychological assessment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's inconsistent and unreliable evidence, lack of acknowledgement or regret, incomplete disclosure to the psychologist, the credible and serious allegations by his former wife, the common assault conviction, relationship conflict history, and uncertainty about his full criminal history established on the balance of probabilities a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the Working with Children Check Clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed; the application is otherwise refused and dismissed; publication of identifying information is prohibited.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing to grant the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed." 'The application by the applicant filed 22 October 2014 is otherwise refused and dismissed.' 'Broadcast or publication of the name or other identifying information of the applicant, or his...