M and Chief Executive Officer Of Department for Community Development

The applicant, M, sought a review of a decision by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Community Development to issue a negative notice to the applicant under the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. The applicant had been charged with two counts of indecent dealings and one count of sexual penetration of his then-stepdaughter, a child under the age of 16 years. The jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the prosecution decided not to pursue a retrial. The applicant argued that the decision to issue a negative notice should not stand because the prosecution had been abandoned and there was no conviction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Chief Executive Officer was justified in issuing a negative notice to the applicant. The court needed to determine whether there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant might in future cause sexual or physical harm to children. The applicant contended that the negative notice should not be issued as there was no conviction and the prosecution had been abandoned. The respondent argued that the charges, if proven, would constitute a serious criminal offence and that the risk of the applicant causing sexual or physical harm to children was unacceptable.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 and found that a negative notice could be issued if the person had been charged with a criminal offence that, if proven, would constitute a serious criminal offence and the Chief Executive Officer was satisfied that it is not in the public interest to issue a positive notice. The court held that the applicant's charges, if proven, would constitute a serious criminal offence. The court also found that the risk of the applicant causing sexual or physical harm to children was unacceptable, given the nature of the charges. The court concluded that the Chief Executive Officer was justified in issuing a negative notice to the applicant.

The court affirmed the decision of the respondent to issue a negative notice to the applicant. The applicant's name shall not be published except by the respondent for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of his functions under the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. The application for review was dismissed.