CLE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 234

CLE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 234

Although the Tribunal was unable to make positive findings that the allegations involving H, L and J occurred, the protective nature of the jurisdiction required assessment of risk. Having regard to all of the evidence, including the seriousness and similarity of the allegations, the Risk of Significant Harm report, the Children's Court s 90A prohibition order, and the expert's cautious opinion, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the respondent's refusal of the Working with Children Check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Determination of Application for Administrative Review
Outcome
The application for review was dismissed in practice and the respondent's decision refusing the Working with Children Check clearance was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['risk to Safety and Well Being of Children' 'working With Children Check Clearance Refusal' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'allegations of Sexual Harm to Children' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['risk to Safety and Well Being of Children' 'working With Children Check Clearance Refusal' 'real and Appreciable Risk' 'allegations of Sexual Harm to Children' 'protective Jurisdiction' '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

Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Determination of Application for Administrative Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety and well-being of children on the balance of probabilities.' "Whether the respondent's refusal of a Working with Children Check clearance should be affirmed." 'Whether risk can be found despite the Tribunal being unable to make positive findings that the alleged sexual abuse occurred.' 'Whether s 30(1A) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 applied to the review.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal was unable to make positive findings that the allegations involving H, L and J occurred, the protective nature of the jurisdiction required assessment of risk. Having regard to all of the evidence, including the seriousness and similarity of the allegations, the Risk of Significant Harm report, the Children's Court s 90A prohibition order, and the expert's cautious opinion, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the respondent's refusal of the Working with Children Check clearance.

Court Disposition

The application for review was dismissed in practice and the respondent's decision refusing the Working with Children Check clearance was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the respondent dated 6 December 2016 is affirmed.']