DOY v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 150

DOY v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 150

Having considered the applicant's total history, the statutory factors in s 30(1), the expert evidence, the history of allegations, boundary concerns, and particularly making a positive finding that in 2009 the applicant was in a bedroom in a partial state of undress while it was more likely than not that the child resident H was also in the room, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well being of children. Because the jurisdiction is protective and children’s safety is paramount, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the cancellation of the applicant's WWCC clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Cancelling Working With Children Check Clearance / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed in practice; respondent's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'cancellation of Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'discretionary Risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'balance of Probabilities']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'cancellation of Clearance' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'discretionary Risk Assessment' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'balance of Probabilities']

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 Cancelling Working With Children Check Clearance / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well being of children and young persons.' 'What findings, if any, could be made about allegations against the applicant, particularly the 2009 bathroom and bedroom allegations and the 2015 allegations.' "Whether the respondent's decision dated 12 September 2018 to cancel the applicant's Working With Children Check Clearance was the correct and preferable decision." 'If the applicant was not a risk to children, whether a reasonable person would allow unsupervised direct contact with a child and whether granting a clearance would be in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the applicant's total history, the statutory factors in s 30(1), the expert evidence, the history of allegations, boundary concerns, and particularly making a positive finding that in 2009 the applicant was in a bedroom in a partial state of undress while it was more likely than not that the child resident H was also in the room, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant currently poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well being of children. Because the jurisdiction is protective and children’s safety is paramount, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the cancellation of the applicant's WWCC clearance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in practice; respondent's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent dated 12 September 2018 to cancel the applicant's WWCC clearance is affirmed."]