CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 36

CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 36

The applicant did not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal gave particular weight to the concurrent psychiatric opinions that he was low risk, the historical nature of the homicide and other matters, the finding that the homicide was linked to the abusive influence of his deceased father and was unlikely to recur, the Family Court orders and evidence of his attentive parenting, the absence of recent DOCS or FACS reports, and his long security work history without relevant disciplinary or criminal consequences. Accordingly, the refusal of a working with children check clearance was set aside and a clearance was granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision on Review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
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' 'criminal Allegations and Acquittals' 'no Presumption of Risk']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'safety of Children' 'criminal Allegations and Acquittals' 'no Presumption of Risk']

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

Application for Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision on Review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

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 2015 amendments inserting s 15(4A) and s 30(1A) into the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 applied to the proceedings.' "What weight should be given to the applicant's criminal record, past charges, domestic disputes, family law material, work history as a security officer and psychiatric evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not currently pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal gave particular weight to the concurrent psychiatric opinions that he was low risk, the historical nature of the homicide and other matters, the finding that the homicide was linked to the abusive influence of his deceased father and was unlikely to recur, the Family Court orders and evidence of his attentive parenting, the absence of recent DOCS or FACS reports, and his long security work history without relevant disciplinary or criminal consequences. Accordingly, the refusal of a working with children check clearance was set aside and a clearance was granted.

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 dated 2 December 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance is set aside.' 'In substitution for that decision, the following decision is made: The applicant is granted a Working with Children Check clearance.']