Re June (No 2)

The case of Re June (No 2) involved an application by foster carers challenging a decision of the Children's Court in care proceedings concerning a child named June. The foster carers argued that the magistrate had erred in rejecting evidence, and that the magistrate had not properly weighed the advantages of admitting probative evidence against the disadvantages of admitting evidence obtained improperly. Additionally, the foster carers contended that the magistrate had failed to apply section 79(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) and had taken into account irrelevant considerations.

The legal issues before the court included whether the magistrate had erred in rejecting evidence, the appropriate weight to be given to probative evidence against improperly obtained evidence, and the application of section 79(3) of the Care and Protection Act. The court also considered whether the foster carers had been given a statutory opportunity to be heard, as required under section 87 of the same Act, and whether the foster carers had standing to seek relief under section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). If not, the court examined whether the manifest defects in the hearing before and the reasons of the Children's Court constituted "exceptional circumstances" and whether the Supreme Court could, in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction, grant relief under section 69 of the Supreme Court Act.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in rejecting evidence, and that there had been an inappropriate weighing of the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice of its improper acquisition. The court also held that the magistrate had failed to apply section 79(3) of the Care and Protection Act and had acted on irrelevant considerations. Regarding the foster carers' opportunity to be heard, the court determined that they were entitled to such an opportunity under section 87 of the Act. However, the court concluded that the foster carers did not have standing to seek relief under section 69 of the Supreme Court Act, but the manifest defects in the hearing and reasons of the Children's Court did constitute "exceptional circumstances." Therefore, the Supreme Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to grant relief.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the Children's Court to reconsider the case with proper regard for the evidence, the principles of weighing probative evidence against improperly obtained evidence, and the application of section 79(3) of the Care and Protection Act. The court also directed that the foster carers be given a proper opportunity to be heard in the reconsideration of the case.