BRG v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 260

BRG v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 260

The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children. Although the disqualifying offence was serious, it was at the lower end of seriousness for such offences; the applicant was 18 years old at the time, readily acknowledged his conduct, showed genuine remorse and concern for the victim, accepted responsibility including for failing to inquire into the victim's age, had no prior or subsequent similar offending over seven years, modified his social media behaviour, and was assessed as presenting a low likelihood of reoffending. It was therefore appropriate to extend time, make the enabling order, and require the respondent to grant a working with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under Subs 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 and Extension of Time / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; time extended; enabling order made; respondent ordered to grant a working with children clearance.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'disqualifying Offence' 'statutory Presumption of Risk to the Safety of Children' 'extension of Time']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'disqualifying Offence' 'statutory Presumption of Risk to the Safety of Children' 'extension of Time']

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 Subs 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 and Extension of Time / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to bring his application for an enabling order.' 'Whether the applicant proved, contrary to the statutory presumption in subs 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether an enabling order should be made so that the applicant is not treated as a disqualified person in respect of the Crimes Act 1900, s 66C(3) offence.' 'Whether the respondent should be ordered to grant the applicant a working with children clearance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children. Although the disqualifying offence was serious, it was at the lower end of seriousness for such offences; the applicant was 18 years old at the time, readily acknowledged his conduct, showed genuine remorse and concern for the victim, accepted responsibility including for failing to inquire into the victim's age, had no prior or subsequent similar offending over seven years, modified his social media behaviour, and was assessed as presenting a low likelihood of reoffending. It was therefore appropriate to extend time, make the enabling order, and require the respondent to grant a working with...

Court Disposition

Application granted; time extended; enabling order made; respondent ordered to grant a working with children clearance.

Orders

  • ['Time within which the applicant is to bring his application for an enabling order is extended to 10 February 2015.' 'Declare that the applicant not be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the Crimes Act 1900, s 66C(3) offence, of...