BCS v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 81

BCS v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 81

The Applicant did not fully disclose relevant matters, including prior sexual assault charges involving adult female patients and allegations recorded by the Department of Family & Community Services concerning his daughter. Because those matters and his detailed responses were relevant to assessing any risk to children, the non-disclosure meant he had not discharged the onus under s.28(7) to prove that he did not pose a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal therefore refused the enabling order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S.28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Determination of Application
Outcome
Application refused and dismissed.
Legal Topics
['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'full Disclosure' 'onus of Proof' 'risk to Safety of Children']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'full Disclosure' 'onus of Proof' 'risk to Safety of Children']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Enabling Order Under S.28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should make an enabling order declaring that the Applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person in respect of his offence.' 'Whether the Applicant fully disclosed to the Tribunal all matters relevant to the application as required by s.28(5) of the Act.' 'Whether the Applicant proved, contrary to the presumption in s.28(7) of the Act, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not fully disclose relevant matters, including prior sexual assault charges involving adult female patients and allegations recorded by the Department of Family & Community Services concerning his daughter. Because those matters and his detailed responses were relevant to assessing any risk to children, the non-disclosure meant he had not discharged the onus under s.28(7) to prove that he did not pose a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal therefore refused the enabling order.

Court Disposition

Application refused and dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Application is refused and dismissed.']