BWF v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 295

BWF v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 295

Having regard to the statutory factors, the expert evidence that the applicant was a low risk, the limited seriousness of the earlier misconduct, the absence of criminal charges or convictions, the lack of further misconduct for about 6 1/2 years, and the applicant's history and circumstances as a carer, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant posed no real or appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the refusal and require the Children's Guardian to issue a Working with Children Check Clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Hearing of Review Application
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing to provide the applicant with a Working with Children Check Clearance was set aside, and the Children's Guardian was required to issue the clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'authorised Carers' 'risk Assessment' "review of Children's Guardian Decision"]
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'authorised Carers' 'risk Assessment' "review of Children's Guardian 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 / Hearing of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Children's Guardian's refusal to provide the applicant with a Working with Children Check Clearance should be set aside." 'Whether the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, having regard to the matters that caused the refusal and the statutory review criteria.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the statutory factors, the expert evidence that the applicant was a low risk, the limited seriousness of the earlier misconduct, the absence of criminal charges or convictions, the lack of further misconduct for about 6 1/2 years, and the applicant's history and circumstances as a carer, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant posed no real or appreciable risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the refusal and require the Children's Guardian to issue a Working with Children Check Clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian refusing to provide the applicant with a Working with Children Check Clearance was set aside, and the Children's Guardian was required to issue the clearance.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian of 18 June 2015 refusing to provide the applicant with a Working With Children's Check Clearance is set aside;" "The Children's Guardian must issue the applicant with a Working With Children Check Clearance."]