CFS v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 224

CFS v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 224

Having regard to the mandatory section 30 factors, the seriousness of the applicant's disqualifying murder offence and criminal record, the statutory presumption under section 28(7), the inability to impose conditions on any enabling order, and the residual uncertainty and concern arising from the psychological evidence about the applicant's functioning and risk, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had proved that he did not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The enabling order was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 Following Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The applicant's application for an enabling order was refused.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'expert Evidence']
['child Protection' 'administrative Law'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'protective Jurisdiction' 'expert Evidence']

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 Section 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 Following Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012' 'Whether the applicant proved, contrary to the statutory presumption, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children' 'Whether the evidence established a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children and young persons']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the mandatory section 30 factors, the seriousness of the applicant's disqualifying murder offence and criminal record, the statutory presumption under section 28(7), the inability to impose conditions on any enabling order, and the residual uncertainty and concern arising from the psychological evidence about the applicant's functioning and risk, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had proved that he did not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children. The enabling order was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for an enabling order was refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an enabling order is refused."]