CNQ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 7

CNQ v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 7

CNQ posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children because of his poor credibility, the 1998 unprovoked assault on a 14 year old boy, lack of insight and empathy, minimisation and victim-blaming, failure to seek therapeutic intervention, interpersonal difficulties, the possibility that one or more sexual assault allegations were true, long-term marijuana use including driving children while under its influence, lack of evidence of professional assistance to cease using marijuana, and absence of expert evidence that he did not pose a risk. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Review Application Hearing; Decision on Whether to Affirm Refusal
Outcome
The Children's Guardian's decision to refuse CNQ a Working With Children Check Clearance was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'assessment Requirement' 'child Related Work' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'assessment Requirement' 'child Related Work' 'publication Restriction']

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 a Working With Children Check Clearance / Review Application Hearing; Decision on Whether to Affirm Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm or set aside the Children's Guardian's refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance." 'Whether CNQ posed a risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working With Children Act 2012.' 'What weight should be given to the 1998 common assault against a child, allegations involving foster children, marijuana use, credibility, insight and conduct since the relevant matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

CNQ posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children because of his poor credibility, the 1998 unprovoked assault on a 14 year old boy, lack of insight and empathy, minimisation and victim-blaming, failure to seek therapeutic intervention, interpersonal difficulties, the possibility that one or more sexual assault allegations were true, long-term marijuana use including driving children while under its influence, lack of evidence of professional assistance to cease using marijuana, and absence of expert evidence that he did not pose a risk. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the Children's Guardian's refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance.

Court Disposition

The Children's Guardian's decision to refuse CNQ a Working With Children Check Clearance was affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian of 23 November 2015 to refuse the applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed." 'Publication or broadcast of the name or other identifying information of the applicant, his wife, or any child referred to in the evidence without the leave of the Tribunal is...