BJQ v Children's Guardian

The case of BJQ v Children's Guardian involved a dispute over the refusal of a working with children check clearance to the applicant by the Children's Guardian. The applicant sought a review of the decision under section 27 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. The application was heard by the court, which had to determine the correctness and preferability of the decision to refuse the clearance. The key legal issues included the application of clause 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the relevance of dismissed criminal charges, and the significance of DNA evidence and substantiated allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards a child.

The court examined the evidence, including the dismissed charges of aggravated sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, which were based on DNA evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The court also considered the substantiated allegations by the applicant's employer, which involved inappropriate behaviour towards a child. The court found that a real and appreciable risk was posed by the applicant to the safety, welfare, and well-being of children. The paramount concern in such matters was the protection of children from abuse, and the court determined that the decision to refuse the working with children check clearance was the correct and preferable one. The court affirmed the decision of the Children's Guardian dated 2 June 2015, and dismissed the application for review.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the Children's Guardian and refused to grant the applicant a working with children clearance. The court's decision was based on the substantial evidence presented, which indicated a real and appreciable risk to children posed by the applicant. The court found that the correct and preferable decision was to protect children from potential abuse by refusing the clearance. The application for review was dismissed, and the original decision of the Children's Guardian was affirmed.