保障兒童免受性侵犯

Conviction not required to ban teacher from work

Date August 6, 2012 - 12:23PM

A former teacher who was accused of sexually abusing boys but not convicted has been refused a working with children permit.

The matter was initially referred to the State Administrative Tribunal after the Education Department's chief executive gave Allan William Hardingham a "negative notice" to prevent him from working with children in 2008.

The Supreme Court then ordered the SAT to review its initial decision to uphold the "negative notice" and the SAT again upheld the decision on July 31.

Child sexual abuse convictions from 1990 were overturned on appeal because, according to judges, the evidence was unreliable.

Following the quashing of Mr Hardingham's convictions in March 1994 and, after investigation by the Department of Education, he was reinstated as a teacher.

He was then accused of further abuse in 2008 but evidence of the offence was found to be too flimsy to support a positive conclusion that an offence was committed.

Justice Stephen Hall found that while charges did not lead to convictions, "there was cogent and clear evidence that the applicant had engaged in conduct with a number of young boys that, if it was to recur, presented an unacceptable risk of sexual harm and physical harm to children in the future."

That conduct included daring boys to remove their clothes, taking photographs or video footage of boys with their shirts off, creating opportunities to touch their bodies, encouraging or allowing them to drink alcohol and allowing boys to stay at his premises and sleep in close proximity to him.

Justice Hall found that some of the conduct engaged in by Mr Hardingham had been described as 'grooming' behaviour which he said was a reliable indicator that sexual harm may occur in the future.

Child Wise chief executive Bernadette McMenamin welcomed the decision.

"If the department, who has all that background information on him refuses a working with children check, clearly, the authorities are saying this person is not suitable to work with children, even if not convicted there's obviously a lot of incriminating evidence," she said.

Ms McMenamin said it was uncommon for someone who had not been convicted of such an offence to be refused a permit.

She said she wanted tougher restrictions on working with children permits.

"If somebody has been charged on numerous occasions and then go for a working with children's check, I think the charge alone should prevent them, it's too big a risk." (Sydney Morning Herald)

我不肯定香港對兒童受性侵犯的防預措施做得多好，或者根本是機制欠奉。在悉尼除了私人補習，教書也好，甚至做義工也好，不是你說要做就做，背景審查過了關，才能夠開始工作。從這則新聞報導，可見這裏對孌童癖(paedophile)或兒童性侵犯潛着危險的人，防患嚴密。Hardingham1983年開始執教鞭，曾經做過兩年校長，3度涉嫌侵犯男童或做出不當行為，但他不是上訴脫罪，就是沒遭檢控，故此一直都沒有定罪紀錄。這次因申請教師證被拒，繼而司法覆核失敗，以後未必再有機會執教。反觀香港在這方面的工作，還有很多改善空間。