CGZ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 220

CGZ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 220

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal of the Working with Children Clearance because, on all the material, the Applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Although he had been acquitted in the District Court, the Tribunal was persuaded by the complainant's evidence that his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, threatened, scared and distressed; the conduct was sexual in nature and relatively recent; there was another recent allegation of a sexual nature by an unrelated woman; the Applicant gave troubling evidence about failing to disclose that allegation to the psychologist and had little or no insight into the seriousness of the sexual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
The decision of the Respondent to refuse a Working with Children Clearance is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'risk Assessment' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'risk Assessment' '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 Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Merits Review in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant poses a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW).' "Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm, vary or set aside the Respondent's refusal of a Working with Children Clearance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal of the Working with Children Clearance because, on all the material, the Applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Although he had been acquitted in the District Court, the Tribunal was persuaded by the complainant's evidence that his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, threatened, scared and distressed; the conduct was sexual in nature and relatively recent; there was another recent allegation of a sexual nature by an unrelated woman; the Applicant gave troubling evidence about failing to disclose that allegation to the psychologist and had little or no insight into the seriousness of the sexual...

Court Disposition

The decision of the Respondent to refuse a Working with Children Clearance is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Respondent to refuse a Working with Children Clearance is affirmed.']