BMO v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 226
The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children, having insufficient insight into the effects of his violent offending conduct; thus, the statutory presumption under subsection 28(7) of the Act was not rebutted. The application for an enabling order is refused.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Enabling Order Under Administrative Law / Final Decision After Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for enabling order refused
- Legal Topics
- ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'statutory Presumption' 'domestic Violence' 'criminal History Assessment']
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 Administrative Law / Final Decision After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to rebut the statutory presumption under subsection 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 that he poses a risk to the safety of children']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children, having insufficient insight into the effects of his violent offending conduct; thus, the statutory presumption under subsection 28(7) of the Act was not rebutted. The application for an enabling order is refused.
Court Disposition
Application for enabling order refused
Orders
- ["The applicant's 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