FPV v Children's Guardian

Case [2023] NSWCATAD 59


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: FPV v Children’s Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 59
Hearing dates: 22 February 2023
Date of orders: 17 March 2023
Decision date: 17 March 2023
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J McAteer, Senior Member (Legal)
Emeritus Professor P J Foreman AM, General Member (Community)
Decision:

(1) The order made on 1 December 2022, under s64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, in respect of the publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant, is confirmed/continued.

(2) The decision of the respondent on Internal Review dated 31 October 2022 to issue FPV with an exclusion and refuse to grant FPV a clearance is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – NDIS Worker Checks - child protection –risk of harm - whether risk real and appreciable– risk of harm likely or significant– weight of evidence of risk – current risk – credibility of witness evidence – personal harm – detrimental effect on person – whether conduct poses a risk of personal harm – non publication order – whether open justice served – whether risk to applicant

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Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (repealed)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

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Worker Checks) Act 2018

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Practice Standards - Worker Screening) Rules 2018 – Cth

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

ADV v Commission for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 8

AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69

BFC v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 90,

BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BJB v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian (No 2) 2014 NSWCAT 164

Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41

Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409

FBC v Children’s Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 286

Re: Control Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88.

Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: FPV (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self Represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00354623
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal restricts disclosure of the name of the applicant, or of evidence given and received in the Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify that person.

REASONS FOR decision

Introduction

  1. This applicant seeks administrative review of a decision by the respondent refusing to grant him a clearance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Worker Checks) Act 2018 (NSW), the ‘NDIS Check Act’. The clearance was refused because the respondent (the Office of the Children’s Guardian) was satisfied that the applicant posed a risk of harm to persons with a…

Continue reading FPV v Children's Guardian

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
FPV v Children's Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 59
Case
[2023] NSWCATAD 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of FPV v Children's Guardian involved a dispute between the applicant, FPV, and the Children's Guardian, a statutory authority. The dispute centred around FPV's application to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Children's Guardian's decision to issue an exclusion order and deny FPV a clearance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Worker Checks Act 2013. The matter was heard by the Tribunal, which is tasked with resolving administrative law disputes. The core of the dispute was whether the Children's Guardian had correctly determined that FPV posed a real and appreciable risk of personal harm to children, which would warrant an exclusion order.

The Tribunal was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the risk of harm identified by the Children's Guardian was real and appreciable, and if the risk was likely or significant. The Tribunal also needed to assess the weight of evidence presented regarding the risk, the current risk, and the credibility of the witness evidence. The Tribunal considered the nature and extent of the alleged harm, and whether FPV's conduct posed a risk of personal harm to children. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether the open justice principle would be served by publishing the applicant's name and whether there was a risk to the applicant if their name were published.

The Tribunal found that the Children's Guardian had correctly identified a real and appreciable risk of harm posed by FPV to children. The evidence presented was deemed credible and sufficient to support the decision to issue an exclusion order. The Tribunal affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision, and upheld the non-publication order regarding FPV's name, finding that the open justice principle would not be served by publishing the name and that there was a risk to the applicant if their name were made public. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the applicable law, and the principles of administrative law. The final orders confirmed the non-publication order and affirmed the Children's Guardian's decision to issue an exclusion order and deny FPV a clearance.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The order made on 1 December 2022, under s64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, in respect of the publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant, is confirmed/continued.

(2) The decision of the respondent on Internal Review dated 31 October 2022 to issue FPV with an exclusion and refuse to grant FPV a clearance is affirmed.

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.