Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: GQH v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 236 Hearing dates: 20 May 2025 Date of orders: 23 September 2025 Decision date: 23 September 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Starke, Senior Member
M Maher, General MemberDecision: The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 30 August 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Child protection — Risk assessment triggered by presence of records under cl 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 —Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BGW v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 179
BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91
BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
BKV v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWATAD 65
BQK v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 265
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
BZU v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 3
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
CKU v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 36
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111
Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136
CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295
CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28
CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338
CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262
DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308
Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60
DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136
ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162
McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521
Office of the Children’s Guardian v CFW [2016] NSWSC 1406
Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184
Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174
VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267
Cases Cited: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Child protection — Risk assessment triggered by presence of records under cl 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 —Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: GQH (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Sukkar, Counsel (Applicant)
L Geddes, Counsel (Respondent)
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/000339438 Publication restriction: With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read GQH 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
- [2025] NSWCATAD 236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the tribunal included the interpretation of section 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act, which mandates a risk assessment when records indicate potential risks to children. The applicant argued that the decision was not based on sufficient evidence and contravened the principles of natural justice. The tribunal had to determine whether the Children's Guardian's decision was justified, reasonable, and legally sound, considering the statutory framework and relevant case law.
After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the tribunal found that the Children's Guardian's decision was well-founded. The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Children's Guardian, holding that the refusal to grant the applicant’s working with children check clearance was justified. The tribunal concluded that the risk assessment was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the Children's Guardian had properly exercised their discretion based on the available information. The applicant's past criminal history, including convictions for domestic violence and other offences, was deemed to pose a significant risk to children, warranting the refusal of clearance.
The tribunal's decision was final, with no orders for further review. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Children's Guardian, affirming the refusal to grant the applicant’s working with children check clearance.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 30 August 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant’s working with children check 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.