DVW v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 33

DVW v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 33

DVW has rebutted the presumption that he poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, taking into account his remorse, absence of repeat offending, the lapse of time since the offence, persuasive expert evidence regarding low risk of recidivism, and clearances granted in other jurisdictions. Although DVW's candour was diminished by attempts to minimise the offence, this does not outweigh the evidence that he is not a real and appreciable risk. The statutory tests under s 30(1A) and the public interest requirement are met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
enabling order granted; WWCC clearance to be issued
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'merits Review' 'disqualified Persons' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'equal Opportunity'] ['working With Children Check' 'risk Assessment' 'merits Review' 'disqualified Persons' 'protective Jurisdiction']

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 / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether DVW has rebutted the presumption that he poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)' 'Whether an enabling order should be made declaring that DVW is not a disqualified person in respect of the 2014 offence' 'Whether a Working with Children Check Clearance should be granted to DVW']

Ratio Decidendi

DVW has rebutted the presumption that he poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, taking into account his remorse, absence of repeat offending, the lapse of time since the offence, persuasive expert evidence regarding low risk of recidivism, and clearances granted in other jurisdictions. Although DVW's candour was diminished by attempts to minimise the offence, this does not outweigh the evidence that he is not a real and appreciable risk. The statutory tests under s 30(1A) and the public interest requirement are met.

Court Disposition

enabling order granted; WWCC clearance to be issued

Orders

  • ["It is declared DVW is not a disqualified person for the purposes of section 28(1) of Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) for the offence of filming another person's private parts for sexual arousal/sexual gratification contrary to s 91L(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) entered on 5 February 2014 at the...