Re Rosie

Case [2022] NSWSC 1001 25 July 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Rosie [2022] NSWSC 1001
Hearing dates: 25 July 2022
Date of orders: 25 July 2022
Decision date: 25 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Meek J
Decision:
Secure accommodation orders made

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – Parens patriae – Application for secure accommodation orders – Child in custody – To be released tomorrow – Risk if released into community – Orders made

Legislation Cited:
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), s 9(1)

Cases Cited:
GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWSC 892
GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services [2019] NSWCA 277
Re ‘K’ and ‘M’ [2021] NSWSC 1314
Re Thomas [2009] NSWSC 217; (2009) 41 Fam LR 220
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWCA 206

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (First Plaintiff)
Minister for Families and Communities (Second Plaintiff)
Representation:
Counsel:
B J Dean (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2022/217845

Ex Tempore Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is an urgent application by the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services (the Minister) for secure accommodation orders and a non-publication suppression order and other orders in relation to a young girl.
In accordance with the usual practice of the Court that arise in protective and parental jurisdiction, the Court orders that the name of the child, the subject of the proceedings, not be published: see GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services [2019] NSWCA 277 at [1] per Brereton JA (Emmett AJA agreeing).
I will refer to the young girl as Rosie.
The application is made by a summons which has been filed in court today and is brought under the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction.
In support of the application the plaintiffs rely upon an affidavit of Amy Eldridge dated 25 July 2022.
There is an exhibit to the affidavit.
Mr Dean of counsel has appeared on the application and provided the Court with valuable assistance.
He has also provided a written outline of submissions.
The extent of the parens patriae jurisdiction was considered by Lindsay J in GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWSC 892 at [23] to [32]:

“23 The “parens patriae jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court, as it is customarily called, has its historical antecedents in the “infancy” or “wardship” jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor of England. It was conferred on the Supreme Court by Imperial legislation (the New South Wales Act 1823, section 9 and the Australian Courts Act 1828, section 11) and Letters Patent (The Third Charter of Justice, 13 October 1823, clause 18), continued in operation by section 22 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 NSW.
24 With the commencement of that Act on 1 July 1972, the Court acquired, by virtue of section 23, a new…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Rosie

Details

AGLC: Re Rosie [2022] NSWSC 1001
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1001
Decision Date: 25 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Minister for Justice and the child, Rosie, who was in the custody of the Department of Communities and Justice. The nature of the dispute was whether secure accommodation orders should be made for Rosie, who was due to be released from custody the next day. The case was heard by the Children's Court of New South Wales. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was a risk to Rosie's welfare if she were released into the community and whether such a risk warranted the making of secure accommodation orders. The court considered the evidence presented by the Department of Communities and Justice and the submissions made by Rosie's legal representative. The court found that there was a significant risk to Rosie's welfare if she were released into the community and that this risk warranted the making of secure accommodation orders. The court noted that Rosie had a history of offending behaviour and had expressed a willingness to reoffend if released. The court also considered the potential consequences of Rosie's release, including the risk of her reoffending and the impact this would have on her and the community. The court concluded that the risk to Rosie's welfare was significant enough to warrant the making of secure accommodation orders. The court made orders for Rosie to be placed in a secure accommodation facility until further order. The orders were made under section 56 of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW). The court also made orders for the Department of Communities and Justice to provide Rosie with appropriate support and rehabilitation services while in secure accommodation.

Orders