CBM v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 253

CBM v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 253

The Tribunal found that, having regard to the statutory factors and the evidence including the forensic psychologist's professional and well justified opinion, the applicant posed only a low risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal and grant a Working With Children Check Clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision on Review Under S 27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance was set aside and the Children's Guardian was required to give the applicant a clearance.
Legal Topics
['review of Decision to Refuse Working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment for Child Related Work' 'sexual Offence Allegations Resulting in Acquittal' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Check'] ['review of Decision to Refuse Working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment for Child Related Work' 'sexual Offence Allegations Resulting in Acquittal' '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 Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision on Review Under S 27 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance should be affirmed, varied or set aside." 'Whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'What is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, having regard to the statutory factors and the evidence including the forensic psychologist's professional and well justified opinion, the applicant posed only a low risk to the safety of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal and grant a Working With Children Check Clearance.

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance was set aside and the Children's Guardian was required to give the applicant a clearance.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant's a Working With Children Check Clearance is set aside." "The Children's Guardian must give the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance." 'Broadcast or publication of the name or other identifying information of the applicant or the...