ES v Commission for Children and Young People [2004] NSWADT 33

ES v Commission for Children and Young People [2004] NSWADT 33

Although the applicant's propensity to re-offend was assessed as very low, the Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied that he presented no material risk to children in all employment environments, particularly given the seriousness of the index offence, his continuing denial, lack of counselling, and concerns about candour. The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that, in the position of bus driver, he would not pose any real and material risk to the safety of children because that work would involve limited unsupervised contact with children and it was improbable that he would have unsupervised contact with the vulnerable children identified by the expert as potentially warranting...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for a Declaration That the Applicant Is Not a Prohibited Person Under the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter
Outcome
Conditional declaration made permitting the applicant to work as a bus driver.
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'conditional Declaration']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'employment Law'] ['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'conditional Declaration']

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 a Declaration That the Applicant Is Not a Prohibited Person Under the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant posed a real and material risk to the safety of children for the purposes of s 9(4) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998.' 'Whether any risk could be reduced to one of no material significance by imposing conditions under s 9(9).' 'Whether the applicant should receive an unconditional declaration or a conditional declaration limited to employment as a bus driver.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's propensity to re-offend was assessed as very low, the Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied that he presented no material risk to children in all employment environments, particularly given the seriousness of the index offence, his continuing denial, lack of counselling, and concerns about candour. The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that, in the position of bus driver, he would not pose any real and material risk to the safety of children because that work would involve limited unsupervised contact with children and it was improbable that he would have unsupervised contact with the vulnerable children identified by the expert as potentially warranting...

Court Disposition

Conditional declaration made permitting the applicant to work as a bus driver.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal declares that the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 is not to apply to the applicant in respect of the offences of indecent assault on a child under 16 years by person in authority, for which he was convicted on 29 May 1992 at Parramatta District Court, on the following conditions:'...