BFU v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 6

BFU v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 6

Although the disqualifying offences were serious but at the lower end of seriousness for offences of their kind, were committed about ten years earlier, and did not form part of a proven pattern of similar conduct, the applicant did not discharge the onus under subsection 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he had satisfactorily established the necessary insight into his offending conduct, especially the child pornography offence, or identified current dynamic measures to minimise the risk of reoffending by accessing child pornography. Because the statutory presumption of risk to the safety of children was not rebutted, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
The applicant's application for an enabling order was refused.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'child Related Work']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'child Related Work']

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 Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, a disqualified person by reason of convictions for possessing child pornography and aggravated indecent assault of a person under the age of 16 years, should be granted an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether the applicant discharged the onus under subsection 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 to rebut the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient insight into his offending conduct, particularly the child pornography offence, and whether current dynamic measures existed to minimise the risk of reoffending.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the disqualifying offences were serious but at the lower end of seriousness for offences of their kind, were committed about ten years earlier, and did not form part of a proven pattern of similar conduct, the applicant did not discharge the onus under subsection 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he had satisfactorily established the necessary insight into his offending conduct, especially the child pornography offence, or identified current dynamic measures to minimise the risk of reoffending by accessing child pornography. Because the statutory presumption of risk to the safety of children was not rebutted, the...

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for an enabling order was refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an enabling order is refused."]