UB v Commission for Children and Young People [2006] NSWADT 125

UB v Commission for Children and Young People [2006] NSWADT 125

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not discharge his onus of satisfying the Tribunal that he posed no real and material risk to children or that any risk could be reduced to negligible proportions by conditions. His denial that the images were child pornography was inconsistent with his guilty...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 Declaring the Applicant Not a Prohibited Person in Respect of a Specified Offence / Principal Matter in the Community Services Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['prohibited Person' 'child Related Employment' 'possession of Child Pornography' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'protective Conditions']
['administrative Law' 'child Protection' 'employment Law' 'criminal Law'] ['prohibited Person' 'child Related Employment' 'possession of Child Pornography' 'risk to the Safety of Children' 'onus of Proof' 'protective Conditions']

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 an Order Under S 9(1) of the Child Protection (prohibited Employment) Act 1998 Declaring the Applicant Not a Prohibited Person in Respect of a Specified Offence / Principal Matter in the Community Services Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an order under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 in respect of his 1997 conviction for possess child pornography.' 'Whether the applicant proved, on the applicable standard, that he does not pose a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.' 'Whether any risk could be reduced to no material significance by imposing conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not discharge his onus of satisfying the Tribunal that he posed no real and material risk to children or that any risk could be reduced to negligible proportions by conditions. His denial that the images were child pornography was inconsistent with his guilty plea and other evidence, undermining his credibility and making it impossible to assess reliably whether his conduct was aberrant, whether any sexual interest in young teenage girls persisted, or whether conditions would eliminate the risk.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application is dismissed']