FTB v Children’s Guardian [2024] NSWCATAD 44

FTB v Children’s Guardian [2024] NSWCATAD 44

The Tribunal was not satisfied that FTB does not pose a risk to the safety of children. Although it accepted the passage of time, FTB's age, lack of similar proven offending in the intervening period and the low-risk expert assessment, it placed significant weight on the extreme seriousness of the offences, the father-daughter breach of trust, independent evidence of disclosures, FTB's denial and minimisation, lack of understanding or acceptance that his behaviour was wrong, cessation or lack of treatment, non-compliance with reporting obligations, and contact with other registered offenders. Because the statutory precondition in s 16(4) was not met, the Tribunal declined to suspend the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 16(3 A) of the Child Protection (offenders Registration) Act 2000 to Suspend Reporting Obligations / Final Decision
Outcome
Application refused; no order made suspending FTB's reporting period and no order made shortening the period for reapplication.
Legal Topics
['child Protection Offenders Registration' 'reporting Obligations' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'suspension of Reporting Period']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection'] ['child Protection Offenders Registration' 'reporting Obligations' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'suspension of Reporting Period']

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 Under S 16(3 A) of the Child Protection (offenders Registration) Act 2000 to Suspend Reporting Obligations / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should make an order under s 16(3A) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 suspending FTB's reporting obligations for the period by which his reporting period was extended under s 15(3)." 'Whether the Tribunal could be satisfied that FTB does not pose a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the Tribunal should shorten the period in which FTB may reapply under s 16(11) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that FTB does not pose a risk to the safety of children. Although it accepted the passage of time, FTB's age, lack of similar proven offending in the intervening period and the low-risk expert assessment, it placed significant weight on the extreme seriousness of the offences, the father-daughter breach of trust, independent evidence of disclosures, FTB's denial and minimisation, lack of understanding or acceptance that his behaviour was wrong, cessation or lack of treatment, non-compliance with reporting obligations, and contact with other registered offenders. Because the statutory precondition in s 16(4) was not met, the Tribunal declined to suspend the...

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order made suspending FTB's reporting period and no order made shortening the period for reapplication.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 16 (3A) and s 16 (5) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 we decline to make an order suspending FTB's reporting period." 'We decline to make any order under s 16 (11) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 shortening the period in which FTB may reapply to the...