The Court held that risk assessments under both s 26(1) of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 and s 18J of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 are evaluative decisions admitting of only one correct answer, attracting the [name withheld] v [name withheld] correctness standard on appeal rather than [name withheld] v The King appellate restraint, while still affording due regard to the Tribunal's specialist institutional experience in drawing inferences about risk. The Court confirmed that admitted conduct — including historical use of physical restraint, humiliating punishment, and corporal discipline of children — is properly taken into account in present-day risk assessments regardless of the applicant's subjective belief that such conduct was acceptable at the time, and that an applicant's lack of insight into the impact of such conduct is itself relevant to ongoing risk. The failure to put parties on notice of reliance on a subsequently-decided Tribunal authority ([name withheld]) did not constitute material procedural unfairness where the loss of opportunity to make submissions did not deprive the applicant of the possibility of a successful outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members.