CMP v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 285

CMP v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 285

Although the Tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct the subject of the 1992 charge was proved, it could not find the allegations or surrounding circumstances groundless. The applicant acknowledged conduct showing inappropriate familiarity and poor professional boundaries with vulnerable students, had not undertaken counselling or training addressing those issues, and continued to lack insight by blaming others. Considering the s 30(1) factors, the Tribunal was satisfied that granting a clearance would pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, so the correct and preferable decision was to refuse the clearance and affirm the respondent's decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'real and Appreciable Risk to Safety of Children' 'review of Refusal of Clearance' 'professional Boundaries With Children']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'real and Appreciable Risk to Safety of Children' 'review of Refusal of Clearance' 'professional Boundaries With Children']

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 / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should affirm or set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal of the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance." 'Whether, on the material before the Tribunal and considering s 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW), the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'How allegations that were not proved by conviction or finding of guilt should be considered in assessing risk under the working with children scheme.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct the subject of the 1992 charge was proved, it could not find the allegations or surrounding circumstances groundless. The applicant acknowledged conduct showing inappropriate familiarity and poor professional boundaries with vulnerable students, had not undertaken counselling or training addressing those issues, and continued to lack insight by blaming others. Considering the s 30(1) factors, the Tribunal was satisfied that granting a clearance would pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, so the correct and preferable decision was to refuse the clearance and affirm the respondent's decision.

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance was affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's decision made on 19 February 2016 to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance is affirmed."]