CCW v Children's Guardian

In the matter of CCW v Children's Guardian, the dispute centred on the decision by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal to cancel the Working with Children Check Clearance of the Plaintiff, CCW. The Children's Guardian had cancelled the clearance in response to allegations made by the Plaintiff's stepson and daughter that he sexually assaulted them, allegations which were subsequently withdrawn and resulted in the dropping of criminal charges. Despite the withdrawal of the allegations, the Guardian cancelled the clearance based on the Plaintiff's significant criminal history and other antisocial risk factors. The Plaintiff appealed the Tribunal's decision to confirm the cancellation of his clearance, arguing that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider a Family Court consent order granting him custody of his grandchildren.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have made it, and whether the Tribunal failed to appropriately weigh the Family Court's consent order. The Plaintiff further argued that the Tribunal erred by not finding that the allegations did not occur. The court examined the Tribunal's reasoning and whether there was any error of law in its decision-making process. The court considered the evidence and submissions presented to the Tribunal and assessed whether the Tribunal's conclusion was open to it based on the material before it.

The court found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the evidence and exercised its discretion in making its decision. It held that the Tribunal's decision was not so unreasonable as to amount to an error of law. The court noted that the Tribunal was entitled to consider the Plaintiff's criminal history and risk factors, even in the absence of a conviction. Furthermore, the court found that the Tribunal appropriately weighed the Family Court's consent order but ultimately concluded that it did not outweigh the other considerations. The court also rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Tribunal should have found the allegations did not occur, finding that this was a matter for the Tribunal to determine based on the evidence before it.

As a result, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's decision to cancel his Working with Children Check Clearance. The court held that there was no demonstrated error of law in the Tribunal's decision-making process, and thus the appeal was without merit.