ERR v Children’s Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 101
The Tribunal finds, based on consideration of the evidence, applicant's conduct since the offence, statutory presumptions and expert opinion, that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. Therefore the presumption is rebutted and an enabling order is appropriate.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Administrative Review / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- ['child Protection' 'working With Children' 'disqualifying Offences' 'enabling Order' 'risk Assessment']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an enabling order under s 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012' 'Whether the applicant poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children' 'Whether granting a clearance is in the public interest']
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal finds, based on consideration of the evidence, applicant's conduct since the offence, statutory presumptions and expert opinion, that the applicant does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety and well-being of children. Therefore the presumption is rebutted and an enabling order is appropriate.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- ['A hearing is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'The applicant is not to be treated as a disqualified person for the offences for which he was convicted on 14 April 2010.' 'Application for an enabling order is granted.' 'Respondent is to grant the applicant a Working...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment