The High Court dismissed C.D.’s judicial review challenge to the Child and Family Agency’s authority to decide whether allegations of child abuse or neglect were founded or unfounded. It also discharged a stay that had paused the agency’s fact-finding process. The agency’s process had not reached a final finding when the court gave judgment.
The case concerned allegations that C.D. had sexually abused children. The judgment says the agency received a GP referral in July 2017 concerning an alleged incident involving a child aged around five to seven. It also mentions an earlier allegation involving a child aged around three, but says that allegation did not appear to form part of the agency’s reasoning in its provisional decision. C.D. denied all allegations during a social work discussion in January 2018. The Director of Public Prosecutions later directed that there be no prosecution in relation to the allegations covered by the agency’s provisional conclusions.
The agency sent C.D. provisional adverse conclusions in November 2018 and invited a response. In July 2019, C.D. obtained leave to seek prohibition preventing the agency from making conclusions, and a stay pending the case’s determination.
C.D. argued that the agency lacked statutory authority to make founded or unfounded findings. The agency relied on section 3 of the Child Care Act 1991 and existing case law. Justice Richard Humphreys said he had misgivings about the statute’s lack of specificity, but concluded that established authority supported the agency’s jurisdiction. He held that section 3 provided a sufficient basis for such findings.
The judge also rejected arguments that the process was inherently disproportionate or had to stop because of the potential criminal dimension. He said an administrative process could proceed on the balance of probabilities even where conduct might also have criminal consequences. The DPP’s decision not to prosecute meant there was no basis in this case to restrain the administrative process on that ground.
The judgment raised concerns about fair procedures if the same social workers involved in an investigation also made the final decision. It questioned whether the appeal process offered independent scrutiny. But no final agency finding had yet been made, so those concerns did not determine the application. The court said safeguards could require further consideration in future cases and noted that a more explicit statutory basis could be desirable. The dismissal therefore confirmed the agency’s authority; it did not decide whether the allegations against C.D. were true or whether its eventual process would be fair.