CZA v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 248

CZA v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 248

The applicant discharged the onus under s.28(7) and displaced the presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal accepted that the 1977 offences were serious but occurred when the applicant was 18, that he had no other criminal history, had worked for over 30 years as a teacher, was remorseful, understood child protection obligations, and that Dr Seidler assessed his risk as no greater than that of a member of the general population even assuming the later allegations were true. The Tribunal therefore found that he did not pose a risk to the safety of children and that the s.30(1A) requirements were satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S.28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision
Outcome
Application granted; enabling order made and Working with Children clearance ordered to be granted.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Check Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Check Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof']

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 / Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be declared not to be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.' 'Whether the applicant proved, contrary to the statutory presumption in s.28(7), that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.' "Whether the Tribunal should order the Children's Guardian to grant the applicant a Working with Children clearance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant discharged the onus under s.28(7) and displaced the presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children. The Tribunal accepted that the 1977 offences were serious but occurred when the applicant was 18, that he had no other criminal history, had worked for over 30 years as a teacher, was remorseful, understood child protection obligations, and that Dr Seidler assessed his risk as no greater than that of a member of the general population even assuming the later allegations were true. The Tribunal therefore found that he did not pose a risk to the safety of children and that the s.30(1A) requirements were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application granted; enabling order made and Working with Children clearance ordered to be granted.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the Applicant not be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 in respect of the two offences of Indecent Assault for which he received a two year recognisance or bond.' "Pursuant to s.28(6) of the Child Protection (Working with...