{"id":3657,"date":"2015-09-14T12:59:59","date_gmt":"2015-09-14T02:59:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplacetraining.com.au\/2021\/09\/11\/when-punishment-doesnt-fit-the-crime\/"},"modified":"2021-09-11T13:00:09","modified_gmt":"2021-09-11T03:00:09","slug":"when-punishment-doesnt-fit-the-crime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplacetraining.com.au\/2015\/09\/14\/when-punishment-doesnt-fit-the-crime\/","title":{"rendered":"When punishment doesn’t fit the crime\u2026.."},"content":{"rendered":"
The current Royal Commission uncovering shocking examples of institutional child abuse has brought the issue to the forefront of our national consciousness. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that some authorities get jittery about their role in protecting such a vulnerable section of the population. But sometimes, the very system that is supposed to protect in fact imposes unnecessary hardship.<\/p>\n
A case in point is the recent decision of BQY v Children\u2019s Guardian<\/em>. The applicant, referred to as BQY, was a 21-year-old student teacher when she met the student, who was aged 17 and in year 12. She completed her teaching placement at the student\u2019s school, and subsequently had a series of chance meetings with him and his friends at pubs and clubs. She had also befriended some of them on social media.<\/p>\nReason prevails in review<\/h5>\n
The repercussions of the case<\/h5>\n