CDL v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 251

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CDL v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 251 Hearing dates: 18 March 2016 & 22 August 2016 Date of orders: 09 November 2016 Decision date: 09 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Mullane ADCJ, Principal Member R Royer, General Member Decision: (1) The decision of the Children's Guardian of 4 August 2015 refusing [CDL] a Working With Children Check Clearance is affirmed.

(2) Publication or broadcast without the leave of the Tribunal of the name or other identifying information of [CDL] or any child referred to in these proceedings is prohibited. Catchwords: Working with Children Check Clearance – Review of refusal, allegations of past serious violence,- allegations of sexual assaults on child, decision affirmed. Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 Cases Cited: Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CDL (Applicant) Office of the Children's Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: V Hartstein (Respondent)

Solicitors: Lambton Law (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510530 Publication restriction: Order 2 above.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. In November 2013, [CDL] applied to the Children's Guardian for a Working with Children Check Clearance under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 ("the Act"). 2. The Children's Guardian requested various information from [CDL] and obtained other information from public authorities and others. 3. On 4 August 2015, the Children's Guardian wrote to [CDL] notifying him that his application for a Working with Children Check Clearance was refused. The letter set out reasons. 4. On 1 September 2015, [CDL] filed his application in the Tribunal seeking a review of the decision to refuse him a Working with Children Check Clearance. 5. This was the hearing of that review. 6. The hearing commenced on 18 March 2016. At the hearing, [CDL] relied upon evidence by a counsellor, Mr David Bulbert who has qualifications by way of a Diploma in Couple Therapy, a Bachelor Degree in Social Science, and an Associate Diploma in Social Science. He had provided some counselling to [CDL] in 6 sessions in the period from 24 September 2015 to 12 October 2015, after [CDL] had received notice of the decision refusing his application. 7. With the hearing of the proceedings listed for 18 March 2016, in January 2016 [CDL] attended on a forensic psychologist, Dr Vincent Cook, for the purpose of obtaining a risk assessment to assist him in the proceedings. 8. The risk assessment was focussed on assessing risk of violent behaviour towards children. The report is dated 19 February 2016. Dr Cook had interviewed [CDL] on four (4) occasions for a total of about 6 hours. 9. In his report, Dr Cook recommended that [CDL] attend a Cognitive Self Change program designed to reduce violent behaviour and recidivism in offenders with a pattern or anti-social behaviour and criminality. But at the hearing on 18 March 2016, [CDL] had not made any arrangements to attend any such course. 10. After cross examination of Dr Cook, and in submissions by the solicitor for [CDL], [CDL] sought an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to attend a course such as that recommended by Dr Cook. 11. The proceedings were adjourned to a date after 30 June 2016 to enable [CDL] to do this. The hearing resumed on 22 August 2016. At the end of the hearing, and with written and oral submissions by both parties, the Tribunal reserved its decision. 12. The Tribunal has determined that the decision of the Children's Guardian to refuse the Check Clearance was the correct and preferable decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal has affirmed the decision. These are the reasons for the Tribunal decision.