BQP v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 160

BQP v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 160

The Tribunal was not reasonably satisfied that BQP sexually assaulted Child 1 and found the allegation unsustainable in light of Child 1's changed accounts, written withdrawal, police views on credibility and competence, and the absence of an explained basis for the FACS substantiation. Although BQP had committed serious boundary breaches in his mentoring and medical dealings with children, the Tribunal found they were not sexually motivated and did not constitute grooming or paedophilic behaviour. Having regard to the passage of ten years, BQP's lack of criminal record, expert evidence, workplace evidence and demonstrated insight into professional boundaries, the Tribunal was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Application Under S27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 for Review of the Respondent's 16 December 2014 Refusal Decision
Outcome
The decision of the respondent is set aside.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'sexual Misconduct Allegation' 'grooming Behaviour' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'sexual Misconduct Allegation' 'grooming Behaviour' 'risk to the Safety of Children' '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 a Working With Children Check Clearance / Application Under S27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 for Review of the Respondent's 16 December 2014 Refusal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the allegation that BQP sexually assaulted Child 1 was sustained on the evidence' "Whether BQP's conduct amounted to sexual misconduct or grooming behaviour" 'Whether BQP posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children' 'Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse or grant the working with children check clearance']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not reasonably satisfied that BQP sexually assaulted Child 1 and found the allegation unsustainable in light of Child 1's changed accounts, written withdrawal, police views on credibility and competence, and the absence of an explained basis for the FACS substantiation. Although BQP had committed serious boundary breaches in his mentoring and medical dealings with children, the Tribunal found they were not sexually motivated and did not constitute grooming or paedophilic behaviour. Having regard to the passage of ten years, BQP's lack of criminal record, expert evidence, workplace evidence and demonstrated insight into professional boundaries, the Tribunal was not...

Court Disposition

The decision of the respondent is set aside.

Orders

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