CRG v Children's Guardian

The case before the court involved CRG, who was seeking a declaration that he was not a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. CRG had a 2016 conviction for assault with an act of indecency under section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900, which led to a statutory presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children. The Children's Guardian opposed CRG's application on the grounds that the statutory presumption had not been rebutted, and it was not in the public interest to grant the clearance. The legal issues were whether CRG had discharged his onus to rebut the presumption that he posed a risk to children and whether it was in the public interest to grant him a working with children check clearance.

The court considered whether CRG had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that he posed a risk to children. It was noted that CRG had not reoffended since his conviction and had demonstrated a commitment to addressing his past behaviour through therapy and support groups. The court examined whether a reasonable person would allow their children to have direct contact with CRG, taking into account the nature of the offence, the time elapsed since the conviction, and CRG's efforts to rehabilitate. The court concluded that CRG had successfully rebutted the presumption, as the risk of reoffending was minimal, and it was reasonable for a person to allow their children to have direct contact with him. The court also considered whether it was in the public interest to grant CRG a working with children check clearance, finding that it was, given his successful rehabilitation and the lack of any current risk to children.

The Tribunal declared that CRG was not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 in respect of his 2016 conviction. The Tribunal ordered that the Children’s Guardian was to grant CRG a working with children check clearance. This decision recognised CRG’s rehabilitation efforts and the minimal risk he posed to children, while balancing the public interest in protecting children with the need to provide opportunities for individuals to reintegrate into society.