BEF v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 182

BEF v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 182

The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus of rebutting the presumption of risk to the safety of children due to lack of sufficient insight into his offending conduct, particularly regarding the position of authority and the vulnerability of the victim.

Parties
Applicant: BEF; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Enabling Order, Disqualified Person, Risk Assessment, Statutory Presumption
Administrative Law Child Protection Working With Children Check Enabling Order Disqualified Person Risk Assessment Statutory Presumption

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BEF

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged his onus and rebutted the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children
  2. 2 Whether an enabling order should be granted to allow the applicant to work with children despite being a disqualified person

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus of rebutting the presumption of risk to the safety of children due to lack of sufficient insight into his offending conduct, particularly regarding the position of authority and the vulnerability of the victim.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an enabling order is refused.
  • Publication of the applicant’s name or identifying information is restricted pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.