GCN v Children’s Guardian [2024] NSWCATAD 213

GCN v Children’s Guardian [2024] NSWCATAD 213

Although the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption that he presented a risk to children, given the absence of offending for 17 years, the lack of any offence against children, and evidence of reform through faith and support networks, the enabling order could not be made because s 30(1A) was not satisfied. A reasonable person aware of all the relevant facts would have grave concerns about the applicant's lack of insight into consent, his continued denial that the disqualifying sexual intercourse was non-consensual despite his conviction and admissions of coercive conduct, his history of lying to police and minimising offences, and the absence of evidence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for an Enabling Order Under S 28 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 Following Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'reasonable Person Test' 'public Interest Test' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'working With Children Check'] ['enabling Order' 'disqualified Person' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'reasonable Person Test' 'public Interest Test' 'publication Restriction']

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 of the Child Protection (working With Children) Act 2012 Following Refusal of a Working With Children Check Clearance / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant rebutted the presumption that he poses a risk to the safety and well-being of children.' 'Whether, under s 30(1A) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while engaged in child-related work.' 'Whether it was in the public interest to make an enabling order.' "Whether the applicant's criminal history, insight into consent, and conduct since the offences supported the making of an enabling order."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the presumption that he presented a risk to children, given the absence of offending for 17 years, the lack of any offence against children, and evidence of reform through faith and support networks, the enabling order could not be made because s 30(1A) was not satisfied. A reasonable person aware of all the relevant facts would have grave concerns about the applicant's lack of insight into consent, his continued denial that the disqualifying sexual intercourse was non-consensual despite his conviction and admissions of coercive conduct, his history of lying to police and minimising offences, and the absence of evidence...

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's application for an enabling order made 14 October 2023 pursuant to s 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is refused." 'The Tribunal orders under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the NCAT Act) that publication of information that will identify the...