EFZ v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 10

EFZ v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 10

The applicant's index conduct was objectively very serious, but it did not involve a child, she had no prior or subsequent adverse conduct with children, she had substantially and sustainably addressed her mental illness through medication, counselling, insight and relapse strategies, she had strong family and community supports, and expert evidence placed her at low risk of violent re-offending. The Tribunal was satisfied that she did not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, that a reasonable person would allow direct unsupervised contact with a child while she engaged in child-related work, and that granting the clearance was in the public interest. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent's decision refusing the working with children check clearance was set aside and a clearance was granted in substitution.
Legal Topics
['refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'real and Appreciable Risk to the Safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision' 'not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness' 'public Interest']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks' 'mental Health and Forensic Proceedings'] ['refusal of Working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk Assessment' 'real and Appreciable Risk to the Safety of Children' 'correct and Preferable Decision' 'not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness' 'public Interest']

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 Refusing Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the correct and preferable decision was to refuse or grant a working with children check clearance.' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while engaged in child-related work.' 'Whether granting the clearance was in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's index conduct was objectively very serious, but it did not involve a child, she had no prior or subsequent adverse conduct with children, she had substantially and sustainably addressed her mental illness through medication, counselling, insight and relapse strategies, she had strong family and community supports, and expert evidence placed her at low risk of violent re-offending. The Tribunal was satisfied that she did not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children, that a reasonable person would allow direct unsupervised contact with a child while she engaged in child-related work, and that granting the clearance was in the public interest. The...

Court Disposition

The respondent's decision refusing the working with children check clearance was set aside and a clearance was granted in substitution.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent, made on 12 February 2020, to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance is set aside." 'In substitution for that decision a decision is made to grant the applicant with a working with children check clearance.']