CXH v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 344

CXH v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 344

Having regard to the serious and violent nature of the applicant's criminal history, including domestic violence and offending sometimes in the presence of children, the insufficiency of the passage of time since the cessation of violent offending, the protective purpose of the legislation, and the limited weight of the psychological report because of its limited scope and lack of detailed history and documentation, the Tribunal found that the applicant currently posed 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
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision was affirmed and the application was refused.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'criminal History' 'offences of Violence' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'criminal History' 'offences of Violence' 'protective Jurisdiction']

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 Decision Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the correct and preferable decision was to grant or refuse the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance.' 'Whether the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and young persons.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the serious and violent nature of the applicant's criminal history, including domestic violence and offending sometimes in the presence of children, the insufficiency of the passage of time since the cessation of violent offending, the protective purpose of the legislation, and the limited weight of the psychological report because of its limited scope and lack of detailed history and documentation, the Tribunal found that the applicant currently posed 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 respondent's decision was affirmed and the application was refused.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent dated 30 November 2016 to refuse the applicant's Working with Children Check clearance is affirmed."]