PV v Commission for Children and Young People [2005] NSWADT 237

PV v Commission for Children and Young People [2005] NSWADT 237

The applicant bore the onus of proving, on the Briginshaw standard, that he did not pose a real and material risk to children. Although expert evidence supported a low risk of sexual reoffending because of the passage of time and the applicant's age, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence about the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration That Applicant Not a Prohibited Person Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'sexual Offences Involving Persons Under 16' 'onus of Proof']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'prohibited Employment'] ['prohibited Person Declaration' 'child Related Employment' 'risk to Safety of Children' 'sexual Offences Involving Persons Under 16' 'onus of Proof']

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 for Declaration That Applicant Not a Prohibited Person Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should make an order under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 declaring that the Act is not to apply to the applicant in respect of specified offences.' 'Whether the applicant established, on the Briginshaw standard, that he does not pose a risk to the safety of children.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant bore the onus of proving, on the Briginshaw standard, that he did not pose a real and material risk to children. Although expert evidence supported a low risk of sexual reoffending because of the passage of time and the applicant's age, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence about the applicant's conduct over the past 30 years. The evidence was scant and largely uncorroborated, there were concerns about non-disclosure and candour, and there was insufficient evidence of protective factors or insight. The Tribunal therefore could not be satisfied that the risk of reoffending was not real and material.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application is dismissed']