CPL v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 203

CPL v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 203

Although the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that CPL committed the alleged child sexual assault offences, the allegations were not groundless. The number and pattern of allegations by different young and vulnerable girls over about 30 years, the applicant's limited insight into child vulnerability and protective strategies, and Dr Seidler's assessment that CPL posed a moderate risk of future sexual abuse led the Tribunal to find that CPL poses a risk to the safety of children. The correct decision was therefore to affirm the refusal to grant the Working with Children Check Clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Working With Children Check Clearance Decision / Review of Respondent's Decision to Refuse to Grant the Applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance
Outcome
The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'allegations of Child Sexual Abuse' 'safety, Welfare and Well Being of Children']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'child Related Work' 'allegations of Child Sexual Abuse' 'safety, Welfare and Well Being of 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 a Working With Children Check Clearance Decision / Review of Respondent's Decision to Refuse to Grant the Applicant a Working With Children Check Clearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance.' 'How the Tribunal should treat multiple allegations of child sexual abuse where there were no police charges and no signed statements or signed records of interview from complainants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that CPL committed the alleged child sexual assault offences, the allegations were not groundless. The number and pattern of allegations by different young and vulnerable girls over about 30 years, the applicant's limited insight into child vulnerability and protective strategies, and Dr Seidler's assessment that CPL posed a moderate risk of future sexual abuse led the Tribunal to find that CPL poses a risk to the safety of children. The correct decision was therefore to affirm the refusal to grant the Working with Children Check Clearance.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance.

Orders

  • ["The Tribunal affirms the respondent's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check Clearance."]