BFC v The Children's Guardian

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BFC v The Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 90
Hearing dates:13 May 2014 and 23 June 2014
Decision date: 08 July 2014
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Hon G Mullane, Senior member
Decision:

1) The Tribunal declares that BFC is not to be treated as a disqualified person for purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012 in respect of the 3 incest offences found proved by the Supreme Court at Armidale on 17 November 1982.

2) The Children's Guardian must grant BFC a Working with Children check clearance.

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012
Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, 1998
Cases Cited: Commission For Children and Young People -v- V [2002]
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: BFC (Applicant)
The Children's Guardian (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
Mr G Moore for the Respondent
Bird Legal for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the Respondent
File Number(s):1410073
Publication restriction:S64 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 17 November 1982 the Applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court on 3 counts of incest which occurred in about March 1981 or earlier. The sentence was suspended on the basis of him entering into a 3 year recognizance conditional upon him accepting the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service of the Department of Corrective Services and attending Alcoholics Anonymous.

  1. The offences of which the Applicant was convicted were offences under s.78A of the Crimes Act. Pursuant to paragraph 1(j) of Schedule 2 to the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012 ("the Act") it is a disqualifying offence in so far as s.18 of the Act prohibits the Children's Guardian from issuing a Working with Children clearance check to a person who has such a conviction.

  1. When the Act came into force the Applicant was caring for two of his granddaughters. One of the daughters, D, had been in the care of the Applicant since about early 1997 when she was 9, and the other granddaughter, U, had been in his care since 2005 when she was aged 2. Both the granddaughters were children of the daughter of the Applicant, who suffered a drug addiction and had left the children with the Applicant. In March 1997 the Applicant and his wife were granted custody and guardianship of D by the local Court at Bathurst. His wife died in 2000. On 30 October 2007 the Local Court at Bathurst Ordered that U reside with the Applicant and he have sole parental responsibility for her.

  1. In January 2014 the Applicant was informed by the Department of Community Services that he had failed the Working with Children check because he was registered as a child sex offender. The children were removed from his care. D has since completed high school and U is living with an aunt in Sydney.

THE EVIDENCE

  1. The evidence comprised:

1) The Application filed 17 February 2014
2) The…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BFC v The Children's Guardian and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NSWCATAD 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, BFC, sought to overturn a decision by the Children's Guardian that they were a disqualified person under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012 due to previous convictions for incest. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The fundamental legal questions before the Tribunal centred on the interpretation and application of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012, specifically regarding the definition of a "disqualified person" and the relevance of past criminal convictions in determining eligibility for a Working with Children check clearance.

The Tribunal examined the statutory language and legislative intent behind the Act, ultimately concluding that the historical nature of the incest offences and the significant passage of time since the convictions were imposed, coupled with the applicants' subsequent rehabilitation, warranted a departure from the literal interpretation of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Act's purpose was to protect children from current risks, and the applicants' past convictions did not reflect a present danger. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the applicants should not be deemed disqualified persons under the Act and ordered the Children's Guardian to grant the applicants a Working with Children check clearance.

In light of the Tribunal's findings, the applicants were declared not to be disqualified persons for the purposes of the Act in respect of the specified offences. The Tribunal directed the Children's Guardian to issue a Working with Children check clearance to the applicants, thereby allowing them to engage in activities that require such clearance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) The Tribunal declares that BFC is not to be treated as a disqualified person for purposes of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act, 2012 in respect of the 3 incest offences found proved by the Supreme Court at Armidale on 17 November 1982.

2) The Children's Guardian must grant BFC a Working with Children check clearance.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.