(1) The application for a stay or interim order is refused and dismissed.
(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 (NSW). Note: 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 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)-where cancellation of working with children check clearance - where application for a stay of the decision while review application is to be heard later – where paramount concern is protecting children from child abuse – whether to grant an interim stay under section 60, 61, 62 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) - where charge of Aggravated indecent assault victim under authority of offender and acquittal – where stay refused.
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading EMP v Children's Guardian
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
EMP v Children's Guardian [2020] NSWCATAD 301
Case
[2020] NSWCATAD 301
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of EMP v Children's Guardian, the applicant, EMP, sought a review of the decision by the Children's Guardian under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) to cancel their working with children check clearance. The applicant's clearance was revoked following a charge of aggravated indecent assault against a child. Despite being acquitted of the charge, the Guardian maintained the decision to cancel the clearance, citing the paramount concern of protecting children from abuse. The application for a stay of the cancellation decision pending the outcome of the review was dismissed by the court.
The court was required to determine whether the application for an interim stay of the decision should be granted, considering the principles outlined in sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). The key issues included the balance between the applicant's right to work and the paramount need to protect children from potential harm. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, assessing the likelihood of success of the review and the potential harm that could result from the cancellation of the clearance.
The court concluded that the paramount consideration was the protection of children from potential abuse. Despite the acquittal of the applicant, the court found that there was a significant risk to children if the clearance was reinstated. The court was not satisfied that the applicant's rights were sufficiently protected to warrant an interim stay, and therefore, refused to grant the application. The court also imposed restrictions on the publication of the applicant's name and details, in line with section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), to safeguard the privacy and welfare of the child involved.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for a stay and refused to reinstate the applicant's working with children clearance. The court's decision underscored the importance of child protection and the weight given to the Children's Guardian's decision in such matters. The court's order also included provisions for the protection of the child's identity, reflecting the sensitivity of the case and the need to balance competing interests.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The application for a stay or interim order is refused and dismissed.
(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 (NSW). Note: 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