CGB v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 182

CGB v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 182

Having regard to the applicant's history of serious (though unproven) sexual assault allegations, ongoing concerns regarding alcohol use, repeated incidents of domestic violence, and lack of satisfactory insight into child protection issues, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The decision to refuse a clearance is the correct and preferable decision, as the paramount consideration is child safety and there is no power to grant a conditional clearance.

Parties
Applicant: CGB; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Merits Hearing, Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant's working with children check clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check Clearance, Risk Assessment, Administrative Review, Paramount Consideration of Child Safety
Administrative Law Child Protection Equal Opportunity Working With Children Check Clearance Risk Assessment Administrative Review Paramount Consideration of Child Safety

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CGB

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Merits Hearing, Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to children warranting refusal of a working with children check clearance
  2. 2 How to assess risk where serious allegations are not proved nor disproved

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the applicant's history of serious (though unproven) sexual assault allegations, ongoing concerns regarding alcohol use, repeated incidents of domestic violence, and lack of satisfactory insight into child protection issues, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The decision to refuse a clearance is the correct and preferable decision, as the paramount consideration is child safety and there is no power to grant a conditional clearance.

Court Disposition

Decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant's working with children check clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision of the respondent made on 13 October 2015 to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance is affirmed.