DDC v Children's Guardian

Case [2017] NSWCATAD 318


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DDC v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 318
Hearing dates:18 September 2017
Date of orders: 31 October 2017
Decision date: 31 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J Anderson, Senior Member
A Limbury, General Member
Decision:

(1) The decision of the respondent dated 26 May 2017 is set aside.

 

(2) In substitution for that decision, the following order is made; The applicant is granted a working with children check clearance.

 (3) The disclosure of the name of the applicant and any victim or child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review under section 27 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 – refusal of working with children check clearance – where applicant was convicted as a child of offences of violence - whether the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (Repealed)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited: Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
BKE v Office of the NSW Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
BJB v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 111
CFJ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 62.
CJT v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWSC 738
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: DDC (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:

In Person (Applicant)

 

Counsel:
Ms Douglas-Baker (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/00185808
Publication restriction:See order (3).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The applicant seeks review of the decision of the respondent (the Children’s Guardian) to refuse his application for a working with children check clearance.

  2. The applicant is a 23 year old man who lives with his fiancé in regional New South Wales. He works as an enrolled nurse in a residential aged care facility.

  3. On 13 May 2016, the applicant applied to the respondent for a working with children check clearance. On 26 May 2017, the respondent notified the applicant of its decision to refuse him a working with children check clearance.

  4. On 19 June 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the respondent’s decision. The applicant seeks a working with children check clearance in order to meet the requirements of his further nursing studies and to accept an offer of employment at a local hospital.

The working with children legislative scheme

  1. The object of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (“the Act”) is to protect children by not permitting disqualified persons, or persons without clearances, to engage in child-related work, and by requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have working with children check clearances.

  2. A person may apply to the Children’s Guardian for a working with children check clearance.

  3. A person is subject to a risk assessment by the Children’s Guardian if any of the matters specified in Schedule 1 of the Act apply. This includes circumstances where…

Continue reading DDC v Children's Guardian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DDC v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 318
Case
[2017] NSWCATAD 318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DDC v Children's Guardian involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Children's Guardian to refuse the applicant, DDC, a working with children check clearance. The applicant sought to engage in volunteer work with children but was denied a clearance due to convictions for offences of violence when the applicant was a child. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issue was whether the applicant, despite past convictions, currently posed a risk to the safety of children. The court considered whether the Guardian's decision was legally sound, particularly in light of the applicant's current circumstances and the nature of the past offences. The applicant argued that the passage of time and the absence of any recent incidents demonstrated that there was no current risk.

In its decision, QCAT found that the Guardian's decision was flawed as it did not adequately consider the applicant's current circumstances and the time elapsed since the convictions. The tribunal held that the Guardian had failed to properly balance the risk posed by the past offences against the applicant's current suitability to work with children. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the decision and ordered that the applicant be granted a working with children check clearance. The tribunal also imposed a confidentiality order to protect the privacy of the applicant and any victims or children mentioned in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision of the respondent dated 26 May 2017 is set aside.

(2) In substitution for that decision, the following order is made; The applicant is granted a working with children check clearance.

(3) The disclosure of the name of the applicant and any victim or child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.