LA v Commissioner for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 13

LA v Commissioner for Children and Young People [2012] NSWADT 13

The applicant remained subject to the statutory presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children and failed to prove the contrary. The index offence was objectively serious, involved a 55-year-old prospective employer engaging in gross indecency with a 16-year-old, and the applicant continued to deny or...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Application by a Prohibited Person for an Order Under Section 33 I of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 Declaring That Division 2 of Part 7 Is Not to Apply in Respect of a Specified Offence / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'serious Sex Offence' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'protective Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'employment Screening' 'criminal Law'] ['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'serious Sex Offence' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'protective Jurisdiction']

Source-derived case record

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 by a Prohibited Person for an Order Under Section 33 I of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 Declaring That Division 2 of Part 7 Is Not to Apply in Respect of a Specified Offence / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had proved that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children for the purposes of section 33J of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998.' 'Whether an order should be made under section 33I declaring that Division 2 of Part 7 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 does not apply to the applicant in respect of the index offence.' "The seriousness and relevance of the applicant's index offence, criminal record, age, lapse of time, relationship with young males, and expert psychiatric evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant remained subject to the statutory presumption that he posed a risk to the safety of children and failed to prove the contrary. The index offence was objectively serious, involved a 55-year-old prospective employer engaging in gross indecency with a 16-year-old, and the applicant continued to deny or minimise the conduct and showed no insight. His later conduct, including supplying Rohypnol to young boys and his relationship with B, together with his broader criminal record and the expert evidence of Professor Greenberg, supported ongoing concern. The passage of time, his current age, and the absence of further convictions involving children were insufficient to justify the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']