BG -v- Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWADT 56

BG -v- Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWADT 56

The applicant did not discharge the evidentiary onus, to the Briginshaw standard, of establishing that he did not pose a real and material risk to children in any child-related employment. The Tribunal accepted Dr Lennings' evidence that the applicant posed more than a low risk of re-offending in certain circumstances, found that the applicant had not developed profound insight into the reasons for his conduct, and found no sufficient evidentiary basis to formulate conditions for paid or voluntary employment that would reduce the risk to insignificance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for a Declaration That the Applicant Is Not a Prohibited Person Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'serious Sex Offence' 'conditions on Order']
['child Protection' 'administrative Law'] ['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'serious Sex Offence' 'conditions on Order']

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 a Declaration That the Applicant Is Not a Prohibited Person Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant posed a real and material risk to children for the purposes of s 9(4) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998.' 'Whether any risk could be reduced to insignificance by imposing conditions under s 9(9) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to make a further application within five years in respect of voluntary employment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the evidentiary onus, to the Briginshaw standard, of establishing that he did not pose a real and material risk to children in any child-related employment. The Tribunal accepted Dr Lennings' evidence that the applicant posed more than a low risk of re-offending in certain circumstances, found that the applicant had not developed profound insight into the reasons for his conduct, and found no sufficient evidentiary basis to formulate conditions for paid or voluntary employment that would reduce the risk to insignificance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application is dismissed.' 'The applicant may make a further application for an order under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 at any time prior to five years from the date of this decision in respect of voluntary employment only.' 'A copy of these orders to be served on the...