Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DGZ v Children's Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 250 Hearing dates: 12, 13 October 2021
12 November 2021Date of orders: 25 July 2022 Decision date: 25 July 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Anderson, Senior Member
R Royer, General MemberDecision: 1) The decision of the Children’s Guardian on 19 December 2017 to cancel the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance under section 23 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is confirmed.
2) With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited. This order is made under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
3) It is noted that a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-review under section 27(2) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 - cancellation after risk assessment - where paramount concern is protecting children from child abuse - onus of proof in a review under section 27- whether finding on the balance of probabilities is able to be made that the alleged events occurred - whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm – whether a real and appreciable risk is posed by the applicant to the safety of children.
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997(NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Amendment (Statutory Review) Act 2018 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) and Other Child Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: ALH Group Pty Ltd v Dicey’s Toowong Pty Ltd [2003] 2 QdR 1
AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BCS v NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal [2015] NSWSC 126
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BJB v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164
BKE v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
BKV v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 65
Bowen-James v Delegate of Director-General of Department of Health (1992) 27 NSWLR 457
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Bronze Wing Ammunition Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 988
Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
BYR v Children’s Guardian [2013] NSWADT 310
BZU v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 3
Carr v Simnovic (1980) 26 SASR 263
CGR v Office of Children's Guardian [2018] NSWSC 26
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016]…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DGZ v Children's Guardian and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Children’s Guardian’s decision to cancel the applicant's clearance was supported by the evidence, and whether it was appropriate to make a finding on the balance of probabilities that the alleged events occurred. Another significant issue was whether there was an unacceptable risk of harm, and whether a real and appreciable risk was posed by the applicant to the safety of children.
The Tribunal found that the Children’s Guardian's decision was based on a thorough assessment and was supported by the evidence. The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to make a finding on the balance of probabilities that the alleged events occurred, as this was the most appropriate standard in the context of child protection. The Tribunal also determined that the evidence demonstrated that there was an unacceptable risk of harm, and that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.
Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Children’s Guardian to cancel the applicant's clearance and prohibited the publication or broadcast of the names of any persons mentioned in the proceedings, except for expert witnesses and officers of government agencies.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) The decision of the Children’s Guardian on 19 December 2017 to cancel the applicant’s Working with Children Check Clearance under section 23 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is confirmed.
2) With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited. This order is made under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
3) It is noted that a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
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.