CMR v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 80

CMR v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 80

Having considered the paramount consideration in s 4 of the WWC Act and the factors in s 30(1), the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Although the 1998 offence was serious and involved a vulnerable three year old child in the applicant's care, it occurred 18 years earlier when the applicant was 20, there had been no similar offending since, the applicant had matured, had shared custody of his daughter without complaints, had worked with young people as a volunteer without complaint, and the further offences were not child-related. The respondent's refusal was therefore not the correct and preferable decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance / External Review in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
The respondent's decision was set aside and the applicant was granted a working with children check clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

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 / External Review in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance was the correct and preferable decision." 'Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the paramount consideration in s 4 of the WWC Act and the factors in s 30(1), the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant currently posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. Although the 1998 offence was serious and involved a vulnerable three year old child in the applicant's care, it occurred 18 years earlier when the applicant was 20, there had been no similar offending since, the applicant had matured, had shared custody of his daughter without complaints, had worked with young people as a volunteer without complaint, and the further offences were not child-related. The respondent's refusal was therefore not the correct and preferable decision.

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision was set aside and the applicant was granted a working with children check clearance.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent, made on 4 March 2016, to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance is set aside." 'In substitution of that decision the following decision is made: The applicant is granted a working with children check clearance.']