CHN v Children's Guardian

The applicant, CHN, sought judicial review of a decision by the Children's Guardian to refuse to grant him a Working with Children Check clearance. This refusal was based on his history of acts of indecency as a child and anti-social behaviour as an adult. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision and determining whether it was legally sound.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Children's Guardian's decision to deny the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance was lawful. This involved assessing whether the Guardian had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria when evaluating the risk posed by the applicant. The court needed to determine if the Guardian's decision was made without error of law, and if it was supported by proper consideration of all relevant factors.

In its decision, the court found that the Children's Guardian had not appropriately assessed the risk posed by the applicant, nor had they considered all relevant factors in reaching their decision. The court held that the Guardian's decision was not legally sound because it was based on an incomplete assessment of the risk. Consequently, the court set aside the decision and ordered that the Children's Guardian grant the applicant a Working with Children Check clearance.

The orders of the court required the Children's Guardian to set aside their earlier decision and grant the applicant the clearance he sought. The court emphasised the importance of a comprehensive risk assessment and the need for all relevant factors to be considered when making such decisions in the future.