CKF v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 6

CKF v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 6

Although the allegations were serious and some suspicion remained, the Tribunal could not make positive findings that the alleged sexual conduct occurred. The complainants' evidence was largely untested, aspects of the allegations were affected by evidentiary difficulties, the applicant's denials were consistent, the applicant had no criminal record or relevant work, family or community complaints, and the tested expert evidence assessed him as posing an overall low risk. Having considered the mandatory s 30(1) factors and the paramountcy of child safety, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to children, so the correct and preferable decision...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision refusing the clearance was set aside and the applicant was granted a Working with Children Check clearance.
Legal Topics
['merits Review' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'assessment of Risk to Children' 'unproven Allegations' 'weight of Evidence' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['merits Review' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'assessment of Risk to Children' 'unproven Allegations' 'weight of Evidence' 'protective Jurisdiction']

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 a Decision Refusing a Working With Children Check Clearance / Principal Judgment After Hearing

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 posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'How the Tribunal should treat serious but unproven allegations when assessing risk.' "Whether time should be extended for the applicant's out-of-time administrative review application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the allegations were serious and some suspicion remained, the Tribunal could not make positive findings that the alleged sexual conduct occurred. The complainants' evidence was largely untested, aspects of the allegations were affected by evidentiary difficulties, the applicant's denials were consistent, the applicant had no criminal record or relevant work, family or community complaints, and the tested expert evidence assessed him as posing an overall low risk. Having considered the mandatory s 30(1) factors and the paramountcy of child safety, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to children, so the correct and preferable decision...

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision refusing the clearance was set aside and the applicant was granted a Working with Children Check clearance.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 15 December 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a clearance is set aside." 'The respondent is to grant the applicant a Working with Children Clearance.']