Lu v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Lu and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection, under the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 (WA). The issue at the heart of the case was whether the Chief Executive Officer was justified in issuing a negative notice to Lu, which would prevent Lu from working with children. The negative notice was issued based on a conviction of Lu for a Class 2 offence, which was alleged to be 'of a kind' to the specified Schedule 2 offences that would result in a negative notice. The crux of the legal dispute was whether the offence Lu was convicted of involved the commission of an indecent act, and whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the issuance of a negative notice.

The court considered the criteria set out in Section 12(8) of the Act, which requires the Chief Executive Officer to determine whether there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant will cause sexual or physical harm to children in the course of carrying out child-related work. The court examined the nature of Lu's offence, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and whether the offence involved the commission of an indecent act. The court also considered whether there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant the issuance of a negative notice, and whether the negative notice was in the best interests of children. The court found that the Chief Executive Officer's decision to issue a negative notice was justified based on the criteria set out in Section 12(8) of the Act.

The court's reasoning was that Lu's conviction for a Class 2 offence did involve the commission of an indecent act, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the issuance of a negative notice. The court found that the Chief Executive Officer's decision to issue a negative notice was reasonable and in the best interests of children. The court affirmed the Chief Executive Officer's decision to issue a negative notice to Lu. The court found that the Chief Executive Officer had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was in the best interests of children. The court also found that the negative notice was justified based on the criteria set out in Section 12(8) of the Act.