BGO v The Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 19

BGO v The Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 19

The Applicant did not displace the presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal relied on the seriousness of the disqualifying offence, the unresolved allegations concerning the Applicant's nieces and the Applicant's failure to fully disclose relevant material about those allegations, together with the forensic psychologist's assessment that he presented a low-moderate risk of re-offending. The enabling order was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S.28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act, 2012 After Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused and dismissed, with publication restriction ordered.
Legal Topics
['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'indecent Dealing With a Child']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Checks'] ['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'working With Children Check Clearance' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'indecent Dealing With a Child']

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 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act, 2012 After Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be granted an enabling order declaring that he is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012.' 'Whether the Applicant displaced the statutory presumption under s.28(7) that he poses a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the Applicant fully disclosed matters relevant to the application, including allegations concerning his nieces.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not displace the presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal relied on the seriousness of the disqualifying offence, the unresolved allegations concerning the Applicant's nieces and the Applicant's failure to fully disclose relevant material about those allegations, together with the forensic psychologist's assessment that he presented a low-moderate risk of re-offending. The enabling order was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused and dismissed, with publication restriction ordered.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Application for an Enabling Order is refused." 'Broadcasting or publication of the name or address or other details that identify the Applicant or any child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.' 'Otherwise the Application filed 11 April 2014 is dismissed.']