Children’s Court Resource Handbook Update 12 published

Children’s Court Resource Handbook Update 12 contains the following amendments:

The Care and protection matters — important cases has been updated and restructured. New judgments included are:

  • Adoption of B [2019] NSWSC 908 — Test whether child an Aboriginal person under s 4 Adoption Act at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placement principles [4-0220]
  • Hackett (a pseudonym) v Secretary, DCJ [2020] NSWCA 83 — Test whether child an Aboriginal person under s 4 Adoption Act at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placement principles [4-0225]  — sufficient to show child was descended from people who lived in Australia before British colonisation — Fischer v Thompson (Anonymised) [2019] NSWSC 773 disapproved
  • DCJ and Ryan Masters [2020] NSWChC 7 — applicant shared parental responsibility with Minister for cultural up-bringing, sufficient interest in welfare of child to enable standing at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placement principles [4-0230]
  • DCJ and the Stonsky Children [2019] NSWChC 8 — Permanent permanency principles and adoption at Adoption [4-0310]
  • DCJ and Jake [2020] NSWChC 2 — Permanency principles and Adoption at Adoption [4-0315]
  • JE v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2019] NSWCA 162 — Dismissal of appeal from Children’s Court to District Court for lack of procedural fairness at Care plans [4-0620]
  • Department of Family and Community Services and the Jacobs children [2019] NSWChC 11 — finality of litigation, extension of time for filing of the supervision report not permissible at Experts’ reports [4-1230]
  • GR v The Department of Communities & Justice [2020] NSWSC 1622 — ILR should be removed and guardian ad litem appointed at Guardian ad litem [4-1305]
  • Burton v DPP [2019] NSWCA 245 — non-publication order at Identification of children in the media [4-1405]
  • DFaCS and Amber [2019] NSWChC 10 — effect of late filing of s 82 Reports and finality of litigation, when the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court ends at Jurisdiction [4-1635]
  • GR v Secretary, DFaCSJ [2019] NSWCA 177 — Parens patriae jurisdiction at Parens patriae [4-1920]
  • Secretary, DFaCS and Krystal [2019] NSWChC 6 — Care Act s 3 definition of “parent” at “Parent” definition [4-2010]
  • BA and LA v Secretary, DCJ [2019] NSWCA 206 — Judicial review by NSWCA pursuant to s 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 at Permanency planning [4-2105]
  • DCJ and Jack and Jill [2020] NSWChC 3 — permanency plan involving guardianship at Permanency planning [4-2110]
  • DCJ and Teddy [2020] NSWChC 1 — Short Term Orders s 79(9) Care Act at Short-term orders [4-2405].

A new section, Guide — Criminal Jurisdiction, has been inserted at [6-0700]ff to provide a summary of the criminal jurisdiction of the Children’s Court.

Criminal matters — important cases has been updated and restructured.  The new judgments are:

  • PQR v DPP (NSW) [2020] NSWSC 731 — Tendency evidence at Admission of evidence [8-0245]
  • Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 240 — 5-year-old complainant competent to give unsworn evidence at Admission of evidence [8-0250]
  • CO v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1123 — Magistrate erred by sentencing plaintiff without background report at Admission of evidence [8-0255]
  • BC v R [2019] NSWCCA 111 — Tendency evidence and doli incapax at Appeal [8-0355]
  • Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79 — Applicant re-sentenced as reliance upon dissimilar sentencing decisions and sentencing range at Appeal [8-0360]
  • DPP (NSW) v SB [2020] NSWSC 734 — objective test of lawfulness of arrest under s 99(1)(b) of LEPRA at Arrest [8-0515]
  • Pickett v WA (2020) 94 ALJR 629 — Adult enabler or aider criminally responsible despite child offender not having capacity at Doli incapax [8-0845]
  • Kindermann v JQ [2020] NSWSC 1268 — only final forensic procedure orders require hearing and representation, magistrate erred by finding interim order could not be made without representation and a hearing at Forensic procedure [8-1120]
  • R v Richard (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 272 — Unfit to be tried due to intellectual disability at Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 [8-1515]
  • AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) [2019] NSWCCA 46 — Suppression and non-publication orders at Non-publication and suppression orders [8-1605]
  • R v Fay [2020] QCA 154 — recording of conviction set aside as sentencing judge failed to consider relevant countervailing factors and the pre-sentence report at Recording of conviction [8-1655]
  • Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 — judge erred by taking into account applicant’s criminal history as a child in Children’s Court at Recording of conviction [8-1660]
  • Watson v R [2020] NSWCCA 215 — orders invalid as applicant not a “registrable person” within s 3A Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 at Recording of conviction [8-1665]
  • CA v R [2019] NSWCCA 93 — Applicant re-sentenced due to age and deprived background not being given proper allowance at Sentencing [8-1830]
  • IM v R [2019] NSWCCA 107 — Discount for guilty plea to terrorism offence at Sentencing [8-1835]
  • Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109 — Appeal of sentence due to Applicant’s age and remorse at Sentencing [8-1845]
  • SW v R [2019] NSWCCA 194 — Dismissal of appeal as sentence 6 counts of sexual offending not manifestly excessive at Sentencing [8-1850]
  • JE v R [2019] NSWCCA 225 — Disparity error has occurred in relation to the aggregate sentence at Sentencing [8-1855]
  • BM v R [2019] NSWCCA 223 — Failure to assess objective seriousness of offences by applicant with causative mental disorder at Sentencing [8-1860]
  • R v MW [2019] NSWDC 307 — Sentencing for three separate sexual offences, 2 occurred when offender was a child at Sentencing [8-1865]
  • R v Flanagan; R v Brennan (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 306 — Sentencing parity, older offender 18 years 10 months, younger offender 17 years 10 months at Sentencing [8-1870]
  • Best v R [2019] VSCA 124 — Applicant re-sentenced as original sentence manifestly excessive at Sentencing [8-1875]
  • LS v R [2020] NSWCCA 120 — Applicant re-sentenced as original sentence manifestly excessive due to youth, ADHD and autism at Sentencing [8-1880]
  • WB v R [2020] NSWCCA 159 — Error in assessment by sentencing judge of objective seriousness on a collective basis at Sentencing [8-1890]
  • Schembri v The Queen [2020] VSCA 217 — Leave to appeal 5 year sentence for sexual penetration of child and drug trafficking refused at Sentencing [8-1895]
  • TF v R [2020] NSWCCA 248 — disproportion between overall sentence and non-parole period, manifestly excessive at Sentencing [8-1900]
  • Robb v R [2019] NSWCCA 113 — Appeal of sentence commencement date where offence committed on day release at Youth Parole [8-2005].