DNU v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 139

DNU v Children’s Guardian [2019] NSWCATAD 139

The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children, as the disqualifying offence was not against a child and occurred nearly 15 years ago, with no subsequent relevant offending, active community engagement, evidence of remorse, and Dr Seidler's unchallenged assessment of low risk; thus, both statutory preconditions—that a reasonable person would allow unsupervised contact in child-related work, and that it is in the public interest—are satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Working With Children Application for Enabling Order / Final Determination and Orders
Outcome
Application for enabling order granted; applicant not treated as disqualified person; ordered that clearance be granted.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'statutory Presumption' 'public Interest']
['administrative Law' 'equal Opportunity Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check' 'enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'statutory Presumption' 'public Interest']

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 Law Working With Children Application for Enabling Order / Final Determination and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant rebutted statutory presumption of posing a risk to the safety of children under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow unsupervised contact with applicant in child-related work' 'Whether it is in the public interest to grant a working with children check clearance']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant rebutted the statutory presumption that he poses a risk to the safety of children, as the disqualifying offence was not against a child and occurred nearly 15 years ago, with no subsequent relevant offending, active community engagement, evidence of remorse, and Dr Seidler's unchallenged assessment of low risk; thus, both statutory preconditions—that a reasonable person would allow unsupervised contact in child-related work, and that it is in the public interest—are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for enabling order granted; applicant not treated as disqualified person; ordered that clearance be granted.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) in respect of the offence of act of indecency Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61N.' 'Pursuant to s 28(6) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW),...