BLI v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 48

BLI v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 48

The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus to show he does not pose a risk to the safety of children. The evidence did not persuade the Tribunal that the applicant has sufficient insight into his offending or has taken adequate steps to address the factors contributing to his risk, including minimisation of conduct, continued alcohol use, and lack of engagement in treatment. Consequently, the enabling order was refused.

Parties
Applicant: BLI; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law / Tribunal Application / Decision on Application for Enabling Order
Outcome
Application for enabling order refused.
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Disqualified Person, Risk to Safety of Children, Enabling Order, Child Related Work, Criminal History Relevance
Administrative Law Child Protection Law Working With Children Check Disqualified Person Risk to Safety of Children Enabling Order Child Related Work Criminal History Relevance

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

Parties

BLI

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law / Tribunal Application / Decision on Application for Enabling Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to rebut the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children under s 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted an enabling order to be treated as not a disqualified person for the purposes of a working with children check clearance

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the statutory onus to show he does not pose a risk to the safety of children. The evidence did not persuade the Tribunal that the applicant has sufficient insight into his offending or has taken adequate steps to address the factors contributing to his risk, including minimisation of conduct, continued alcohol use, and lack of engagement in treatment. Consequently, the enabling order was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for enabling order refused.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application for an enabling order is refused.