CGM v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 190

CGM v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 190

Having regard to all of the material and the mandatory considerations in s 30 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal could not make a positive finding that the 2013 criminal allegations occurred, but the pattern and circumstances of the allegations, the applicant's history of violence and inappropriate conduct involving children, admissions about some excessive physical discipline and boundary issues, and the absence of risk management measures established a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Because the applicant posed such a risk, the Children's Guardian was obliged to refuse the clearance and the correct and preferable decision was to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of a Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision on Administrative Review
Outcome
The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 19 October 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children check clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'merits Review']

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

Application for Administrative Review of a Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision on Administrative Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the correct and preferable decision was to grant or refuse the applicant a Working with Children check clearance.' 'Whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children within the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether the absence of a positive finding that alleged sexual abuse occurred prevents a conclusion that the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to children.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to all of the material and the mandatory considerations in s 30 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the Tribunal could not make a positive finding that the 2013 criminal allegations occurred, but the pattern and circumstances of the allegations, the applicant's history of violence and inappropriate conduct involving children, admissions about some excessive physical discipline and boundary issues, and the absence of risk management measures established a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Because the applicant posed such a risk, the Children's Guardian was obliged to refuse the clearance and the correct and preferable decision was to...

Court Disposition

The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 19 October 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children check clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 19 October 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children check clearance is affirmed."]