CPF v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 305

CPF v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 305

The applicant has not discharged his onus to prove he does not pose a risk to the safety of children. The conduct for which he was disqualified is recent, involved unexplained and inappropriate behaviour towards a vulnerable person in a workplace, and there is insufficient evidence of reduction of risk despite psychological intervention and deterrence through proceedings. The statutory and public interest thresholds for enabling order have not been met.

Parties
Applicant: CPF; Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Working With Children Check, Disqualified Person, Risk to Safety of Children, Enabling Order Application, Review by Tribunal
Administrative Law Child Protection Law Working With Children Check Disqualified Person Risk to Safety of Children Enabling Order Application Review by Tribunal

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPF

Applicant

Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Decision Application for Enabling Order Under Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to prove he does not pose a risk to the safety of children
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption of risk to children has been rebutted
  3. 3 Whether an enabling order should be granted under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has not discharged his onus to prove he does not pose a risk to the safety of children. The conduct for which he was disqualified is recent, involved unexplained and inappropriate behaviour towards a vulnerable person in a workplace, and there is insufficient evidence of reduction of risk despite psychological intervention and deterrence through proceedings. The statutory and public interest thresholds for enabling order have not been met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an enabling order under section 28 Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) is refused and dismissed.
  • The disclosure of the name of the applicant and any victim or child referred to in these reasons is prohibited.