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Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 (repealed)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
-
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
- AGLC
- FPV v Children's Guardian [2023] NSWCATAD 59
- Case
- [2023] NSWCATAD 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.