Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Working with Children Clearance Due to Risk to Children
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court accepted that the Tribunal correctly assessed the risk based on the pattern of allegations and their similarity.
- The court accepted that the Tribunal was justified in doubting the truthfulness of some of the material presented by the plaintiff.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the plaintiff's testimonials and statutory declarations attesting to his innocence.
- The court rejected the claim that the Tribunal did not provide procedural fairness by not disclosing its approach to assessing future risk.
- The court rejected the notion that the Tribunal's reasoning was legally unreasonable and lacked a logical path from unsubstantiated allegations to a finding of risk.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant should receive a working with children clearance given the risk to children's safety.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to uphold the denial of the clearance because the Tribunal found there was a real and appreciable risk to children's safety.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also have their working with children clearance denied if there is a real and appreciable risk to children's safety.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the risk to children's safety were crucial.