BWE v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 186

BWE v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 186

The Tribunal found that, although the applicant's index offence was serious, he had undergone counselling, no longer suffered from mental illness, controlled substance use, demonstrated rehabilitation, and had not committed further offences. The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption of risk to children; the enabling order was appropriate under s 28(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review (enabling Order Application) / Final Decision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'disqualified Persons' 'risk Assessment' 'mental Health' 'substance Use' 'violence' 'criminal History' 'full Disclosure Obligation']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'equal Opportunity Law'] ['working With Children Check' 'disqualified Persons' 'risk Assessment' 'mental Health' 'substance Use' 'violence' 'criminal History' 'full Disclosure Obligation']

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

Administrative Review (enabling Order Application) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant should be treated as a disqualified person under Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012' 'Whether applicant has discharged his onus to rebut the presumption of risk to children' "Assessment of applicant's risk to the safety of children" "Impact of applicant's criminal and psychiatric history"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, although the applicant's index offence was serious, he had undergone counselling, no longer suffered from mental illness, controlled substance use, demonstrated rehabilitation, and had not committed further offences. The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption of risk to children; the enabling order was appropriate under s 28(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ['The applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working With Children) Act 2012 in respect of the offence of committing an act of indecency with a person over the age of 16 years contrary to s.61N of the Crimes Act 1900 of which he was convicted on 6 April...