BHA v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 161
The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal found the applicant not to be a credible or reliable witness, had not accepted responsibility for his convictions, and Dr Lennings' expert opinion of a moderate risk was accepted. The presumption of risk under s 28(7) was not rebutted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Enabling Order Under the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- ['working With Children Clearance' 'enabling Order for Disqualified Person' '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.
Procedural Posture
Application for Enabling Order Under the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant (a disqualified person) has proven he does not pose a risk to the safety of children within the meaning of s 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal found the applicant not to be a credible or reliable witness, had not accepted responsibility for his convictions, and Dr Lennings' expert opinion of a moderate risk was accepted. The presumption of risk under s 28(7) was not rebutted.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- ['The application for an enabling order is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment