CPU v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 131

CPU v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 131

The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that, for the purpose of child-related work, he poses a real and appreciable risk to children. Although he had positive factors including no further offending, employment, community involvement and supportive relationships, the Tribunal gave little weight to the psychologist's risk conclusions because they were based on incomplete information and the applicant's account. The Tribunal considered the disqualifying offence serious, involving a breach of trust, and found unresolved concerns about the applicant's insight, his inconsistent and disingenuous acknowledgement of guilt, his failure to disclose relevant matters in family law proceedings...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Hearing and Determination of the Applicant's Application for an Enabling Order
Outcome
The application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent Conviction' 'statutory Presumption']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent Conviction' 'statutory Presumption']

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 S 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 (nsw) / Hearing and Determination of the Applicant's Application for an Enabling Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, a disqualified person by reason of a 2010 conviction for sexual intercourse without consent contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900, rebutted the statutory presumption in s 28(7) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) that he poses a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether an enabling order should be made so that the applicant could obtain a working with children check clearance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to rebut the presumption that, for the purpose of child-related work, he poses a real and appreciable risk to children. Although he had positive factors including no further offending, employment, community involvement and supportive relationships, the Tribunal gave little weight to the psychologist's risk conclusions because they were based on incomplete information and the applicant's account. The Tribunal considered the disqualifying offence serious, involving a breach of trust, and found unresolved concerns about the applicant's insight, his inconsistent and disingenuous acknowledgement of guilt, his failure to disclose relevant matters in family law proceedings...

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed.

Orders

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