DAI v Children's Guardian

Case

[2017] NSWCATAD 308

25 October 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Dai v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308 [2017] NSWCATAD 308 25 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dai, applied for a working with children check clearance under the Children Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. The application was refused by the Children's Guardian, based on Dai's convictions for common assault and child assault, and the Guardian's belief that Dai posed a risk to the safety of children. Dai sought judicial review of the Guardian's decision, arguing that the refusal was unreasonable and that he had served a long crime free period. The court was required to determine whether the Guardian's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's risk to the safety of children was adequately considered.

The court held that the Guardian was required to consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to grant a clearance, including the nature of the convictions, the time that had elapsed since the convictions, and the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court found that the Guardian had failed to adequately consider these factors and had instead placed undue weight on the convictions without sufficient regard to the applicant's long crime free period. The court also found that the Guardian had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a breach of the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the Guardian's decision and granted the applicant a working with children check clearance in its place.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when making a decision under the Children Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. The court emphasised that a long crime free period can be a significant factor in assessing an applicant's risk to the safety of children, and that the decision-maker must provide sufficient reasons for their decision. The court's decision also reinforces the principle that a person should not be denied an opportunity to work with children solely on the basis of past convictions, where those convictions are sufficiently remote in time and the applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

  • Refusal of Clearance

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

64

GXE v Children's Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 285
GTX v Children's Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 278
GTZ v Children's Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 276
Cases Cited

8

Statutory Material Cited

3

BYR v Children's Guardian [2013] NSWADT 310