"M" v Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWIRComm 80

"M" v Commission for Children and Young People [2003] NSWIRComm 80

The stay was refused because, on the interlocutory evidence, the Commission was not satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried in the sense required for a stay. Although the 1981 offences were old, did not involve children, and were followed by no relevant conviction, the applicant had failed to be...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 9 of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 for a Declaration and for a Stay of the Operation of a Prohibition / Interlocutory Application for a Stay Under S 9(6) Pending Determination of the Substantive Application
Outcome
Application for a stay refused; substantive application permitted to continue.
Legal Topics
['prohibited Employment' 'child Related Employment' 'serious Sex Offence' 'stay of Statutory Prohibition' 'risk to Safety of Children']
['industrial Relations' 'child Protection' 'practice and Procedure'] ['prohibited Employment' 'child Related Employment' 'serious Sex Offence' 'stay of Statutory Prohibition' 'risk to Safety of Children']

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 Under S 9 of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 for a Declaration and for a Stay of the Operation of a Prohibition / Interlocutory Application for a Stay Under S 9(6) Pending Determination of the Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an order under s 9(6) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 staying the operation of a prohibition pending determination of the substantive application.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated a seriously arguable case that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether the applicant would suffer detriment if the stay was not granted and whether the balance of relevant considerations favoured a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, on the interlocutory evidence, the Commission was not satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried in the sense required for a stay. Although the 1981 offences were old, did not involve children, and were followed by no relevant conviction, the applicant had failed to be forthright about allegations involving children, had a history of mental health issues without current expert evidence before the Commission, had attracted recent allegations of conduct of a sexual nature, and had been assessed in a March 2002 Department report as a significant risk to children. In any event, the balance of relevant considerations was against granting the stay.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay refused; substantive application permitted to continue.

Orders

  • ['The application for an order under s 9(6) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 is refused.' 'Section 9(8) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 shall not operate to prevent the applicant from pursuing an order under s 9(1) of that Act in accordance with his application in...