DQL v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 204

DQL v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 204

Given DQL's significant and recent history of violent offending, some of which involved or occurred in the presence of children, and evidence that he is still in the early stages of rehabilitation, the Tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that DQL does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. There was no expert evidence to demonstrate the absence of risk; thus, the Tribunal affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision refusing DQL a Working with Children Check clearance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Merits Review Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed; original decision affirmed
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'administrative Review' 'merits Review' 'violent Offences' 'rehabilitation' 'disqualification and Clearance Decisions']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'equal Opportunity'] ['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'administrative Review' 'merits Review' 'violent Offences' 'rehabilitation' 'disqualification and Clearance Decisions']

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 / Merits Review Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether DQL poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children and should be granted a Working with Children Check clearance']

Ratio Decidendi

Given DQL's significant and recent history of violent offending, some of which involved or occurred in the presence of children, and evidence that he is still in the early stages of rehabilitation, the Tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that DQL does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. There was no expert evidence to demonstrate the absence of risk; thus, the Tribunal affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision refusing DQL a Working with Children Check clearance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; original decision affirmed

Orders

  • ["The decision of the Children's Guardian dated 19 February 2016, refusing to grant DQL with a working with children check clearance is affirmed."]