NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: BGX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 173 Hearing dates: 4 September 2014 Decision date: 16 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M W Anderson, Senior Member Decision: The application filed 24 April 2014 seeking an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is refused and dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-Working with Children check clearance sought by way of an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012- disqualifying offence section 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900 possessing child pornography-whether the applicant has proven he is not a risk to the safety of children-Tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence-onus of proof-failure to discharge the onus of proof-EXTENSION OF TIME- application filed out of time approximately one month-extension of time to file the application for an enabling order granted pursuant to section 41, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 - enabling order refused. Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
Child Protection (Working with Children) Regulation 2013
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
Civil and Administrative Rules 2014
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1987Cases Cited: AYU v NSW Office of the Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BFX v Children's Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BYR v Children's Guardian [2013] NSWADT 310
Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
R v Commission for Children and Young People [2002] NSWIRComm 101
Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436Category: Principal judgment Parties: BGX (Applicant)
Children's Guardian (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr Moir (Applicant)
Ms V Hartstein (Respondent)
Intercept Law (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 1410209 Publication restriction: Section 64 (1), Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013-restricition on publication of information that will identify the applicant, any victims, witnesses, or evidence given and received in the Tribunal or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.
reasons for decision
The applicant, known by the initials 'BGX' for the purposes of these proceedings, filed his application for an enabling order in the Tribunal on 24 April 2014. The matter was heard on 4 September 2014.
An order was made at the commencement of the hearing of the proceedings under section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ("the CAT Act") restricting publication of information that will identify the applicant, any victims, witnesses, or evidence received in the Tribunal or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.
The applicant seeks an enabling order under section 28 (1) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 ("the Act") which will, if granted, be a declaration…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read BGX v 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCATAD 173
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal held that it was not bound by the rules of evidence, but the onus of proof rested on the applicant to demonstrate that he was not a risk to the safety of children. The applicant failed to discharge this onus, as he did not provide sufficient evidence to convince the Tribunal that he had genuinely reformed and was no longer a risk to children. The Tribunal also addressed the application for an extension of time to file the application for an enabling order. It found that the application was filed out of time but granted an extension under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Despite this, the Tribunal ultimately refused to grant the enabling order as the applicant did not meet the required standard of proof.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, confirming that the refusal to grant an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 would stand. The Tribunal found that BGX had not successfully demonstrated that he was not a risk to the safety of children, and thus the application for the enabling order was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application filed 24 April 2014 seeking an enabling order under section 28 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 is refused and dismissed.
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.