CHR v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 188

CHR v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 188

Having considered all the evidence, including the circumstances of the historic allegations, the applicant's acquittal, the length of time since the allegations, the absence of further relevant adverse conduct, the applicant's current circumstances, and the paramount consideration of child safety, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Therefore, the respondent's decision to refuse the clearance is not the correct and preferable decision and must be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Determination
Outcome
Respondent's refusal set aside; clearance granted
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'review of Administrative Decisions']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'review of Administrative Decisions']

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 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children under the Working With Children Check scheme' "Whether the respondent's refusal to grant a clearance should be set aside"]

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered all the evidence, including the circumstances of the historic allegations, the applicant's acquittal, the length of time since the allegations, the absence of further relevant adverse conduct, the applicant's current circumstances, and the paramount consideration of child safety, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Therefore, the respondent's decision to refuse the clearance is not the correct and preferable decision and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Respondent's refusal set aside; clearance granted

Orders

  • ["The respondent's decision made on 19 November 2015 to refuse the applicant a working with children check clearance is set aside." 'In substitution for that decision the following decision is made: The applicant is granted a working with children check clearance.']