BZU v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 3

BZU v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 3

The applicant, previously convicted of murder involving extreme violence, has not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of risk or insight into the offending behavior. Considering all evidence and statutory factors, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The refusal to grant a Working with Children Check clearance is the correct and preferable decision in order to protect children, as required by the Act.

Parties
Applicant: BZU; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Merits Review Decision and Reasons
Outcome
Application for review refused. Decision of the Children's Guardian affirmed.
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Risk Assessment, Assessment of Convictions, Protective Jurisdiction, Standard of Proof, Onus of Proof, Review of Government Decision
Administrative Law Child Protection Equal Opportunity Working With Children Check Risk Assessment Assessment of Convictions Protective Jurisdiction Standard of Proof +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BZU

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Merits Review Decision and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children within the meaning of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to grant a Working with Children Check clearance should be affirmed

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, previously convicted of murder involving extreme violence, has not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of risk or insight into the offending behavior. Considering all evidence and statutory factors, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The refusal to grant a Working with Children Check clearance is the correct and preferable decision in order to protect children, as required by the Act.

Court Disposition

Application for review refused. Decision of the Children's Guardian affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 19 January 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed.
  • The application for review is otherwise refused and dismissed.