ELE v Children’s Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 113

ELE v Children’s Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 113

Although the applicant did not present a real or appreciable risk to the safety of children because of his age, circumstances at the time of the offences, present advanced age, infirmity, lack of other convictions and loss of libido, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the reasonable person and public interest thresholds in s 30(1A) were met. A reasonable person would have concern about allowing the applicant unsupervised direct contact with a child in child-related work because his belief that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 and his view that Victim 1 invited sexual activity could affect his ability to identify or report hazards appropriately or promptly. The evidence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Determination of Application in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['working With Children Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'reasonable Person Test' 'public Interest']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['working With Children Clearance' 'disqualified Person' 'enabling Order' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'reasonable Person Test' '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

Application for an Enabling Order Under S 28(1) of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 / Determination of Application in the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant proved, contrary to the statutory presumption in s 28(7), that he did not pose a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the applicant that was not directly supervised while the applicant was engaged in child-related work.' 'Whether it was in the public interest to make an enabling order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant did not present a real or appreciable risk to the safety of children because of his age, circumstances at the time of the offences, present advanced age, infirmity, lack of other convictions and loss of libido, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the reasonable person and public interest thresholds in s 30(1A) were met. A reasonable person would have concern about allowing the applicant unsupervised direct contact with a child in child-related work because his belief that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 and his view that Victim 1 invited sexual activity could affect his ability to identify or report hazards appropriately or promptly. The evidence...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an enabling order under s 28(1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is dismissed.']