DCV v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 21
The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities and in accordance with s 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, that the applicant continues to pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and young persons. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the refusal of the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance.
- Parties
- Applicant: DCV; Respondent: Children's Guardian
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 January 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Decision affirmed; clearance refused
- Legal Topics
- Working With Children Check Clearance, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
DCV
Applicant
Children's Guardian
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children
- 2 Correct and preferable decision regarding refusal of Working with Children Check Clearance
- 3 Application and interpretation of section 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities and in accordance with s 30(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, that the applicant continues to pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and young persons. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the refusal of the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance.
Court Disposition
Decision affirmed; clearance refused
Orders
- The decision of the respondent dated 2 May 2017 to refuse the applicant's Working with Children Check Clearance is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment