SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | CP v Director-General, Community Services Directorate |
Citation: | [2018] ACTCA 32 |
Hearing Date: | 7 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 28 August 2018 |
Before: | Burns, Elkaim and Mossop JJ |
Decision: | See [60] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL – Leave to appeal from the Supreme Court – appeal from directions consequent upon finding that children were at risk of physical abuse – significant delay in determining appeal from orders made by Childrens Court – factual basis for finding not made out – leave to appeal granted |
| CHILDREN – CHILD WELFARE – Care and protection orders – Appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of a magistrate in the Childrens Court relating to care and protections under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) – finding that children were at risk of “physical abuse” – primary judge gives extended meaning to “physical abuse” – risk of physical abuse not established on the evidence – primary judge’s extended definition of physical abuse doubted – appeal allowed – respondent not entitled to cross-appeal to raise new argument having regard to conduct of proceedings – appeal upheld – application for care and protection orders dismissed | |
Legislation Cited: | Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), ss 9, 342, 343, 344, 345, 345(1), 345(1)(a), 345(1)(b), 436, 464, 464(1)(a), 464(5) Court Procedures Act 2006 (ACT), rr 5412, 5413, 5413(1) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E(4) |
Cases Cited: | Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate and Ors [2017] ACTSC 394 CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 201 |
Parties: | CP (Applicant) Director-General, Community Services Directorate (Respondent) LC (Second Respondent) JP (Third Respondent) GP (Fourth Respondent) NP (Fifth Respondent) DP (Sixth Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel P Walker SC and J Haddock (Applicant) K Archer (Respondent) L Strong (Children’s Representative) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Applicant) ACT Government Solicitor (Respondent) Strong Law Pty Ltd (Children’s Representative) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 22 of 2018 |
Decisions under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court Before: Refshauge J Dates of Decisions: 21 December 2017, 20 July 2018 Case Title: CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate (No 2) Citations: [2017] ACTSC 394 Court File Number: SCA 56 of 2014 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
This is an application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of the Supreme Court and, if leave is granted, the hearing of the appeal. The application relates to an appeal to a single judge of the Court from a decision of the Childrens Court making care and protection orders under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) (the CYP Act). For the reasons which follow, we grant leave to appeal and allow that appeal.
Proceedings in Childrens Court
Proceedings were commenced in the Childrens Court by an application by the Director‑General filed 12 July 2013. That application sought final care and protection…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CP v Director-General, Community Services Directorate 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
- [2018] ACTCA 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted from the directions made by the Supreme Court. A significant factor in this determination was the considerable delay that had already occurred in resolving the matter, which had originated in the Childrens Court. The Court also considered whether the factual basis for the finding that the children were at risk of physical abuse had been adequately made out.
The Court granted leave to appeal, acknowledging the significant delay and the importance of ensuring that the factual basis for such serious findings was properly established. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for timely and just resolution of matters involving children's welfare and the potential prejudice caused by protracted proceedings.
The Court ultimately granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [60]
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.