NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CMR v Children's Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 80 Hearing dates: 9 September 2016 Date of orders: 16 March 2017 Decision date: 16 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Principal Member Emeritus Professor P Foreman, General Member Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent, made on 4 March 2016, to refuse the applicant's application for a working with children check clearance is set aside.
(2) In substitution of that decision the following decision is made: The applicant is granted a working with children check clearance. Catchwords: Administrative Review – child protection – working with children check clearance – applicant's application for a clearance refused by the respondent following a risk assessment based on the applicant's 1998 conviction of an offence of malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm on a three year old child – the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of the offence and there has been no further offending of this kind since that time - the respondent found following a risk assessment that the applicant posed a risk to the safety of children –whether the respondent's decision is the correct and preferable decision – found on the material before the Tribunal and the applicable law, the decision of the respondent is not the correct and preferable decision Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) Children and Young Person (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: BKE v Office of the Children's Guardian & Anor [2015] NSWSC 523 BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BVM v Children's Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 65 Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 11 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CMR (Applicant) Children's Guardian (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Douglas-Baker (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate