DHL v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 238
The applicant's offending was related to alcohol, has not involved children, applicant has shown genuine remorse, committed to rehabilitation, and expert evidence supports that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk to children. Therefore, the applicant should not be treated as a disqualified person and is entitled to a Working with Children Check clearance.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- ['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'public Interest' 'criminal History Assessment']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012' 'Whether the applicant should be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Act' 'Whether a Working with Children Check clearance should be granted']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant's offending was related to alcohol, has not involved children, applicant has shown genuine remorse, committed to rehabilitation, and expert evidence supports that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk to children. Therefore, the applicant should not be treated as a disqualified person and is entitled to a Working with Children Check clearance.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- ['The applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 in respect of the offence of assault with an act of indecency.' "The Children's Guardian is to grant the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance"]
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