BXL v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 36

BXL v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 36

The applicant did not discharge the statutory onus of proof that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to children greater than the risk posed by any adult preying on a child, taking into account all relevant statutory factors and the totality of evidence, including the applicant's minimisation of his conduct, lack of evidence of ongoing risk management, and lack of sufficient independent support for claimed changes.

Parties
Applicant: BXL; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Disqualified Persons, Risk to Children, Child Abuse, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Child Protection Working With Children Check Disqualified Persons Risk to Children Child Abuse Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BXL

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged his onus under s 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 to prove he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to children
  2. 2 Meaning of 'risk' in the context of working with children clearances
  3. 3 Application of statutory factors in s 30(1) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the statutory onus of proof that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to children greater than the risk posed by any adult preying on a child, taking into account all relevant statutory factors and the totality of evidence, including the applicant's minimisation of his conduct, lack of evidence of ongoing risk management, and lack of sufficient independent support for claimed changes.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.