The respondent's decision of 16 August 2024, to issue the applicant with a WWC exclusion, is affirmed.

1. On 25 October 2023, AYQ[1] applied for a working with children ('WWC') clearance under the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) ('WS Act').[2]
2. A criminal history check undertaken later that month revealed that AYQ had been charged with an offence of 'unlawful assault'[3] which was dealt with in the Seymour Magistrates' Court on 11 November 2022 where AYQ pleaded and was found guilty. The 'result' was that, without conviction, the matter was adjourned for a year and, following AYQ's compliance with a bond/undertaking, the matter was dismissed by the Court on 10 November 2023.
3. In May 2024, Victoria Police provided the respondent - at the time, the Secretary to the Department of Government Services ('Department'), but recently amended to the Social Services Regulator ('SSR') - with the following description of the circumstances of the offending:

The applicant is the victim's father. On 20th July 2021 the victim was misbehaving and the applicant advised him that he would not be wearing his PJs to daycare the following day for PJ Day, due to his behaviour.

On 21st July 2021 the applicant told the victim to get out of his PJs and get dressed for daycare. The victim refused and the applicant became angry and began yelling at the victim. The victim still refused to change his clothes and the applicant smacked him on the buttock, causing a large hand-print bruise on the victim's right buttock. The bruising is dark purple in colour.

1. The respondent also received information from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing ('DFFH') in June 2024 which indicated the department had received six reports concerning AYQ between November 2020 and October 2023, each concerning allegations related to 'physical disciplining [of] the children' and/or 'family violence perpetration'. Of these, three had been 'closed at Intake', two were 'closed at investigations (sic)' and one was 'closed at Protection Order phase'.
2. Based on the information as to his offending and the child protection issues, AYQ was issued with a WWC exclusion on 16 August 2024 ('Decision'). AYQ applied for review on 5 September 2024. There was significant delay in progressing this matter to hearing because of AYQ's failure to provide the names and dates of birth of his children to the Department in order to enable them to obtain DFFH's case files.[4]
3. AYQ primarily seeks a WWC clearance to be able to engage in school camps and other activities with his two youngest children, noting that he had been unable to do this with his eldest daughter. He has also suggested that he and his family would like to set up a community-based karate school.
4. The SSR opposes AYQ's application. It contends that:[5]

There is a lengthy and serious pattern of allegations of inappropriate physical discipline by [AYQ] against his young children: ranging from spanking, to the use of belts, to the ingestion of chili sauce as punishment. Against this pattern, [AYQ] was found guilty in 2023 of assaulting his then four-year-old son, leaving a hand-print bruise on his son's buttocks. [AYQ] has denied hitting his son.

...

... With such a relevant, and serious offence against a pattern of concerning conduct of physical abuse and an absence of objective supporting information, the Tribunal should find that it is appropriate to refuse to grant a WW[C] clearance.

1. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard from AYQ and his wife. Leave was also granted for AYQ to produce references from a high school friend and another friend from his karate class following the hearing.
2. For the reasons which follow, despite the references, I have determined to affirm the Decision, primarily on the basis that I am not satisfied that a reasonable person would, at this time, allow their child to have direct contact with AYQ if he was granted a WWC clearance and therefore able to engage in any type of child-related work.

1. The purpose of the WS Act is to assist in protecting children from sexual or physical harm by ensuring that people who engage in child-related work are subject to screening.[6] Consistent with that purpose, the protection of children from sexual or physical harm is the paramount consideration when the Secretary (or the Tribunal on review) makes a decision about a WWC clearance.[7]
2. Under section 105(1)(b) of the WS Act, a decision to give a WWC exclusion on a WWC category C application is reviewable. Under the WS Act, AYQ's application was a 'WWC category C application' because he had been found guilty of unlawful assault.[8]
3. Section 108 defines the Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to review of a decision to give a WWC exclusion on a WWC category C application. In undertaking the review, VCAT is required to determine whether it is 'appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance, having regard to any matters to which the Secretary must have regard under section 65(2)'.[9] The 'Section 65(2) Matters' are:
   • the nature and gravity of the conduct and its relevance to child-related work;
   • the period of time since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
   • in the case of an offence, whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for it or a charge for it is still pending;
   • in the case of an offence, the sentence imposed for it;
   • the ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
   • whether or not the conduct has been decriminalised or has ceased to be subject to disciplinary charges since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in it;
   • the applicant's behaviour since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
   • the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant; and
   • any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application; and
   • any other matter that VCAT (stepping into the shoes of the decision-maker) considers relevant to the application.
4. However, VCAT 'must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance' unless satisfied that:
   • 'a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work' ('Reasonable Person Test'); or
   • 'the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children' ('Unjustifiable Risk Test').[10]
5. Further, VCAT 'must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give the clearance unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the clearance' ('Public Interest Test').
6. In EDO v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety ('EDO'),[11] the Tribunal dealt with a similar situation where a father had been issued with a WWC exclusion as a result of being charged with unlawful assault of one of his own children. Deputy President Lambrick (as her Honour then was) observed in this context:[12]

A father has a special relationship of trust with his children. He is expected to be a protector rather than the person from whom the children need to be protected. If a person's own children are not safe from him, real concerns arise with that person engaging in child-related work.

A person who wishes to work with children must place children's needs first. A person who wishes to work with children cannot disregard the physical and/or psychological impact of his conduct on his children.

1. In EDO, Deputy President Lambrick ultimately determined to set aside the WWC exclusion and order that the applicant in that case be granted a WWC clearance. In so doing, she made some salient observations on the disciplining of children as follows:[13]

Views on disciplin[in]g children have changed dramatically in recent years. Many over the age of 45 will nevertheless recall the existence of physical "discipline" in the school and/or home. Some debate still continues as to whether any form of physical discipline is acceptable. I accept that EDO now considers that no form of physical discipline is ever acceptable. I accept that he will live his life accordingly and that the reasonable person would accept that he will.

1. It appears that, in EDO, character references were provided by the applicant's wife and daughters, and his wife also gave evidence before the Tribunal. The respondent in that case submitted a reasonable person 'would draw no comfort from the character references'.[14] Deputy President Lambrick observed, in this regard, that it 'does not follow that because [his wife and daughters] love and support him that their evidence is flawed and not to be accepted'.[15] Ultimately, she accepted that evidence, which she described as 'strong and persuasive' noting that, in giving evidence, the applicant's wife was 'supporting her husband as he now is, yet recognising and articulating the flaws as they previously existed'.[16] She did not consider that his wife and daughters were 'mechanically supporting him or being coerced into supporting him'.[17]
2. Notably, Deputy President Lambrick considered the 'most persuasive evidence came from EDO himself' because he impressed her 'as a man who had genuinely reflected on his conduct and taken onboard the advice and counselling offered by others'.[18]

The nature and gravity of the conduct and its relevance to child-related work

1. The SSR submits that AYQ's offending is both serious and relevant to child-related work given it involved 'inappropriate physical discipline' and 'direct physical harm against a child'.[19]
2. That submission is consistent with the decision in EDO.[20]
3. Based on a relatively contemporaneous report prepared in mid-August 2021 by a consulting forensic paediatrician ('Paediatric Report'),[21] the photos that had been taken of the son on 22 July 2021 (i.e. the day after the events in question) revealed:[22]

There was a large area of bruising to the right buttock measuring 80mm in width x 60mm in length. There were multiple, horizontal linear bruises with areas of sparing [i.e. areas of uninjured skin] in between. The bruises were read and purple in colour and petechial [i.e. pinpoint non-blanching spots on skin].

There was a cluster of petechial bruising in a vertical line just lateral to the left gluteal cleft, measuring 30 mm in length and 5 mm in width. There was sparing of the gluteal cleft [i.e. the groove between the buttocks].

1. In the report, the paediatrician observes that '[b]ruising to the buttocks which spares the gluteal cleft has been described in children who have been spanked [and] is not commonly seen following accidental trauma to the buttocks'.[23] The paediatrician concluded that the son's 'consistent story of being smacked by his father because he wouldn't take off his pyjamas', coupled with the 'pattern of bruising' and AYQ's 'previous involvement with child protection for the use of corporal punishment on his children', 'generates a high level of concern that [the son's] bruises were caused by spanking inflicted under the guise of discipline'.[24]
2. In his written submissions,[25] AYQ contended that he was 'never formally charged with any crime related to the allegations presented', the claims against him 'were ultimately dismissed' and the bruising on his son's buttocks 'was proven not to have been caused by [him]'. When I asked him about whether he maintained that position, he responded with the suggestion that the handprint on his son's buttocks was smaller and did not match his handprint and, for that reason, everything was struck out.
3. The documentary evidence contradicts that claim.
4. Firstly, it is clear that AYQ was charged with criminal offences arising from the events on 21 July 2021, originally both 'reckless cause injury' (charge 1) and 'unlawful assault' (charge 2).[26] For context, the former is an indictable offence, subject to penalty of up to 5 years' imprisonment,[27] while the latter is a summary offence, which may result in a fine or imprisonment for three months.[28]
5. The criminal history records that charge 1 was 'struckout - withdrawn' when the matter came before the Seymour Magistrates Court on 11 November 2022. The context for that outcome is provided in a withdrawal report prepared by the prosecutor which indicates that:[29]
   • in a conversation with AYQ's lawyer, it was indicated that AYQ was 'willing to plea[d] guilty to charge 2';
   • there were 'adequate options open to the court' with respect to sentencing;
   • '[p]otential extra investigation [would be] required for tendency & uncharged acts should this proceed to contested hearing'; and
   • as a result, the public interest was to 'accept charge 2 to resolve this case'.
6. Second, neither the paediatrician's report nor the withdrawal report includes reference to the size of the handprints on AYQ's son's buttocks.
7. In cross-examination, AYQ initially said he could not remember if he had pleaded guilty (as stated in the withdrawal report), suggesting that his lawyer 'took care' of the matter. However, he ultimately accepted that he pleaded guilty to charge 2 in order for charge 1 to be dropped (consistent with the withdrawal report). Despite accepting that he pleaded guilty, he said it was 'correct' that he continued to deny that he hit his son. He contended that his lawyer did 'argue the point' (regarding the size of the handprint on his son's buttock) at court.
8. When AYQ's wife was cross-examined, she agreed that she had told the paediatrician that the son's allegation that he had been smacked by AYQ was a 'crock of shit'.[30] She said she was not aware of the paediatrician's opinion that the sparing of the gluteal cleft was consistent with smacking rather than accidental trauma and ventured the view that on the 'day prior, [her eldest daughter, then 11, and son] had an argument and [she] smacked him'. She said she informed the paediatrician of this at the time.
9. A difficulty with that evidence is that the Paediatric Report records a different explanation being provided by AYQ's wife as to the cause of the bruise in July 2021, as follows:[31]

[AYQ's wife] told me "to me, it looks like an old bruise, it doesn't look fresh. At the weekend [the second oldest child, then 7] pushed [her son] off the cubby house. [They] were also fighting on Monday (2 days prior to the bruise being noticed), they were kicking and slapping. [AYQ's wife] had to separate them, but [she] was unaware (of the bruise) ...

1. Further, it is apparent from the Paediatric Report that even that account was not accepted based on the information available.
2. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is plain that AYQ:
   • was charged with;
   • pleaded guilty to; and
   • was found guilty of,

1. The claims made by AYQ and his wife that their son was smacked by one of his sisters is not supported by the evidence before the Tribunal and there is nothing to support the submission that the handprint on their son's buttock was too small to be AYQ's handprint.
2. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the conduct occurred in the manner described by the police (see [3]) and accept the respondent's submission that the gravity of the conduct is serious and is relevant to child-related work.

The period of time since the applicant engaged in the conduct

1. The offending occurred nearly five years' ago (although AYQ's application for a WWC clearance was made within 15 months of the relevant events).

In the case of an offence, whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for it and the sentence imposed

1. As already noted above (see [32]), AYQ pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, the unlawful assault of his son. However, no conviction was imposed, rather he was placed on a bond/undertaking for 12 months and, on 10 November 2023, the matter was dismissed as a result of his compliance with the terms of that bond/undertaking.[32]

The ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant engaged in the conduct;

1. At the time of the offending, AYQ was 36 years' old and his son was four.

Whether or not the conduct has been decriminalised since the applicant engaged in it;

1. Unlawful assault remains an offence, albeit a summary rather than indictable offence.

The applicant's behaviour since the applicant engaged in the conduct;

1. AYQ has not been charged with any other offences since the conduct.[33]
2. AYQ states that he has completed a men's behavioural change program, which was 'designed to address and improve [his] understanding of appropriate disciplinary methods and to promote positive parenting practices'.[34] He goes on to suggest that he 'engaged fully with the program and [has] taken the lessons learned seriously'.
3. That he completed the program is supported by the DFFH material before the Tribunal, although that material indicates a different level of engagement. In particular, it is suggested that AYQ's engagement was 'understood to be superficial' and that he 'continues to encourage his children to choose aggressive responses'.[35] When I asked AYQ about those observations he said he did not understand what DFFH was saying or where it came from. In closing submissions, AYQ suggested that he was unable to provide evidence of completion of the men's behavioural change program because DHHS had never given it to him.
4. More concerningly, there has been a further report of AYQ's inappropriate disciplining of his children to DFFH in October 2023.[36] The (redacted) report is in the following terms:[37]

Current concern pertain[s] to [all three of AYQ's children] who resides in parental care of mother [name redacted] and father [AYQ]. [Redacted sentence]. Concerns relate to [son] disclosing that [redacted content] father hit him with a belt and a wooden spoon on his bum and feet. [Redacted sentence]. [Son] was home alone with his father when this occurred. [Redacted sentences] the father pinned [middle child] against the fence, [redaction]. The father held [middle child] [redacted material] on his elbow against the neck.

[Redacted material] The father was living at the backyard in a [bungalow]. [Redacted material].

1. In November 2023, that report was endorsed for investigation as to 'physical abuse, namely that father using a belt and family [violence]'.[38] However, in a letter sent by DFFH to the Department in July 2024, it was noted that the allegations had not been substantiated and the case had been closed in January 2024.[39] Further, at the time the letter was sent, there was 'no current Child Protection involvement with [AYQ]'.
2. AYQ gave evidence that he currently lives at home with his wife and three children. He said that his son and his youngest daughter (the middle child) are both on the 'spectrum' and he always strives to support and help them. He also explained that he had recently changed employment from being a tradesmen to a managerial role within an engineering company.

The likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant

1. The SSR submits that '[u]ltimately, it is for [AYQ] to show that [he] does not pose a risk of harm to children' (rather than for the SSR to show that he does pose a risk).[40] In that regard, the SSR contends that there is 'no probative evidence on which the Tribunal can draw comfort, that [AYQ] understands his own behaviours, triggers, responses or boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate discipline'.[41]
2. Further, given his denial of the conduct and the child protection material suggesting a 'concerning pattern of serious inappropriate physical discipline', this 'ought to lead to the Tribunal concluding there is a real risk of future harm to a child'.[42]

Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application

1. In his written submissions, AYQ suggests that, contrary to the SSR's position that there is a pattern of inappropriate physical discipline, the incidents 'do not reflect [his] actual parenting practices'. He 'maintain[s] that any disciplinary actions taken were within the bounds of reasonable parenting' and 'aimed at teaching [his] children right from wrong'.[43]
2. When I asked AYQ to elaborate on this, he explained that he talks to his children and asks them to see things from the other person's point of view. He said that the disciplinary action is 'time out' or making them 'sit out from an activity'.
3. AYQ explained that he is seeking a WWC clearance so that he can be a 'responsible and active parent' and attend school excursions and camps with his son and middle daughter, observing that he had 'missed out' for his eldest daughter. He said that, because of their conditions, his children 'rely on routine and stability' and that his inability to participate in their events had an 'emotional impact' on them. He was also concerned to 'take the weight off [his] wife'.
4. In closing, AYQ accepted that he is 'not perfect', observing that there is 'no handbook on how to raise children' and that he does his best and learns along the way. He said that he has worked hard with his wife to create a 'warm and stable and loving home'.

1. AYQ has provided two references.
2. The first reference, dated 23 March 2026, is from a friend who has known AYQ for 29 years. She says that AYQ has been a 'loyal friend' and person 'you can rely on when you are in a bind'. She says he is the godparent of one of her four children and that her children affectionately refer to AYQ as "Uncle". She suggests that he is a person her children 'can rely on for advice, comfort and help of any kind'.
3. The SSR submits that this reference 'should be afforded no weight' on the basis that it is a 'general, character reference', 'says nothing about observing the Applicant engaging with [her] children or how he disciplines his or other children' and there is 'nothing in the reference that suggests any knowledge of the Applicant's offence history' or AYQ's interactions with child protection.[44] It is said to be 'unclear whether [she] would continue to give the reference with such knowledge'.[45]
4. As AYQ did not call his friend to give evidence, the Tribunal cannot establish if she:
   • was aware that he had pleaded and was found guilty of the assault of his son, that he had been required to leave the family home for a period and that there have been other allegations raised with child protection relating to inappropriate discipline of his children; and
   • if not, whether that would change her opinion of AYQ.
5. For these reasons, I accept the SSR's submissions that this reference can be given no weight.
6. The second (undated) reference is from an instructor at the martial arts centre which AYQ and his family attend. The instructor says he met AYQ and his family in 2018 when AYQ's eldest daughter started training at the centre and has become a close friend, regularly attending AYQ's home for dinner. He says he has 'never SEEN [AYQ] raise his hand to any of [his] children'[46] or otherwise engage in physical discipline, although accepts that AYQ is 'hard on them', for example, 'making them do calisthenics eg; push-ups or squats as a Punishment and extra chores'. He also notes that as martial arts students, the family 'all Rough house with each other', and while 'Accidents happen with Karate' and 'bruises will happen', this is 'never in a malicious way'.
7. It is evident that the instructor is aware of this proceeding, going so far as to suggests that the SSR 'know the untruth[s]' outlined in the Court documents.[47] He is also aware that AYQ was removed from the family home in July 2021. Surprisingly, he suggests that this has happened again, more recently, in September 2025.
8. The SSR submits that the instructor's reference should be afforded 'adverse weight' for the following reasons:[48]
   • The instructor has only observed AYQ in 'controlled, public settings' and 'not in circumstances where the Applicant is disciplining his children or is in states of anger'.
   • The instructor 'does not appear to be fully appraised of all relevant circumstances', noting his reference to untruths in the court material 'despite the Applicant's guilty plea' and suggesting bruising arises from accidental contact, 'despite the forensic paediatrician's expert report that the relevant bruising was unlikely to have been so caused'.
   • While the instructor is aware of AYQ being removed from his family, he 'does not know why' and this 'shows a lack of insight into the Applicant's private circumstances' and 'disregard [for] the underlying inference that there must have been a reason for Victoria Police to justify removing the Applicant'.
   • The instructor's reference to punishment by way of calisthenics or extra chores is inconsistent with the evidence of AYQ and his wife that they 'talk to their children' and the only discipline is to 'put them in the "naughty corner" ... call[ing] into question the completeness or veracity of the Applicant's evidence'.
9. While the instructor's reference is, on its face, supportive of AYQ's case, the matters raised by the SSR in its submissions do raise significant concerns as to the weight that can be afforded to it. In particular, given that there is no suggestion that the instructor was present at AYQ's home on 21 July 2021, the suggestion that the charges laid and the finding of guilt was an 'untruth' could only have come from AYQ and undermines the instructor's own credibility.
10. While I would not go so far as to suggest that the instructor's reference should be afforded 'adverse weight', I do consider that it should be afforded very little weight in the circumstances.

1. Weighing all of the Section 65 Matters, on balance, I have determined that it is 'appropriate' to refuse to give a WWC clearance to AYQ at this time.
2. In so finding, I accept that AYQ cares very much for his children and wishes to be a more active presence in their lives and to support his wife in looking after them. However, I remain concerned about his ability to control his emotions and behaviour in challenging circumstances.
3. I also remain concerned about his insight into his past behaviour and whether he has truly turned the corner in his views as to the appropriateness of physical discipline. While I accept that AYQ has completed a men's behavioural change program, the extent of his engagement and his acceptance of the need to change remain unclear to me.
4. By contrast to the situation in EDO:
   • The evidence of AYQ's wife was not 'strong and persuasive'. Rather than 'recognising and articulating' AYQ's past flaws, she absolved him of any responsibility in relation to the injuries to their youngest son despite him pleading and being found guilty of unlawful assault. For the reasons already mentioned, her evidence in this regard lacked credibility.
   • Due to his continued insistence that he was not responsible for the injuries to his son, I am not satisfied that AYQ has 'genuinely reflected on his conduct' or, at this stage, fully 'taken onboard the advice and counselling offered by others'.

1. Further to the matters discussed in the previous section, I am not satisfied that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work (including volunteer work).
2. This test is particularly relevant where one reason for AYQ seeking his WWC clearance is to allow him to establish a community-based karate school. Inevitably, there will be situations where AYQ will have to maintain discipline in an environment involving physical interaction with children.
3. Similarly, if AYQ is granted a WWC clearance enabling him to attend school camps and other activities with his children, he will be exposed to the children of other parents who may not behave in the manner that AYQ expects or requires of his own children.
4. As the SSR recognises, the Reasonable Person Test is an objective test and a reasonable person 'would not approach the task with a closed mind thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed'.[49]
5. However, the SSR submits that the reasonable person would be 'gravely concerned' that AYQ 'reacted with serious violence to what is behaviour not unexpected of a four year old', as well as by the 'pattern and seriousness of allegations of inappropriate physical discipline against his own children'.[50]
6. Further, the SSR contend the reasonable person would:
   • 'not accept that the Applicant genuinely knows the difference between appropriate discipline and physical abuse';[51] and
   • be 'concerned by the Applicant's denial of his offending conduct in 2021, and his lack of insight into and remorse for it'.[52]
7. In my view, a reasonable person would be rightly concerned that, if AYQ cannot control his emotions and avoid physical disciplining of his own children, he is even less likely to show restraint if faced by confronting behaviour on the part of the reasonable person's children and, for that reason, would not allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant if he was to be engaged in any type of child-related work.
8. While the reasonable person would accept that AYQ has started along the journey of reflecting on his conduct and seeking counselling (in the form of the men's behavioural change course), they would consider that there is still some way to go before he could be entrusted to have direct contact with their children.

1. For the same or similar reasons to the foregoing analysis, I am not satisfied that the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
2. Based on this conclusion, and my preceding conclusion as to the Reasonable Person Test, it follows that I must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give AYQ a WWC clearance.

1. The SSR submits the 'very core of the public interest test is the paramount consideration of protecting children from sexual and physical harm' and, as such, in circumstances where there is a risk of harm, 'the public interest will not favour the grant of the WWC clearance'.[53]
2. Based on Maleckas (LKQ) v Secretary, Department of Justice,[54] the SSR contends that, if the Tribunals finds that AYQ has not satisfied the Unjustifiable Risk Test, 'it would be difficult to envisage how [the Tribunal] could then find that it was in the public interest to give [him] a WWC clearance'.[55]
3. I accept that the paramount consideration of protecting children from harm is a significant aspect of the public interest. Of course, as Deputy President Lambrick observed in EDO, it is also in the public interest 'for an individual to contribute to society in any way he can when he does not pose an unjustifiable risk to children'.[56]
4. If I were satisfied that AYQ met the Unjustifiable Risk Test, it would also follow that there would be a public interest in allowing him to volunteer at his children's schools and to establish a community-based karate school.
5. However, for the reasons discussed above, I am not so satisfied and it follows that I am unable to be satisfied that it is in the public interest for AYQ to be given a WWC clearance at this time.
6. Again, it follows that I must determine it is appropriate to refuse to give him that clearance.

[1] A pseudonym given to the applicant by order dated 12 March 2026 to avoid identification of his children.

[2] AYQ had held a WWC clearance in 2008, but this had lapsed by 2023.

[3] Section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

[4] This resulted in the application being struck out for want of prosecution by order dated 10 June 2025, only to be reinstated a week later. It was not until November 2025 that the parties confirmed that the matter was ready to be listed and provided the information required by the Tribunal to do so.

[5] Respondent's Submissions Opposing the Application dated 16 February 2026 ('RS') [1] & [3].

[8] WS Act, s 64(1)(c). Unlawful assault is an offence that is treated as less serious in the scheme of the Act, as compared to category A and category B offences.

[11] [2021] VCAT 936.

[25] Emailed to the Tribunal on 4 March 2026.

[26] Charge - Sheet and Summons dated 8 January 2022: TB, 39-40.

[27] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 18.

[28] Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), s 23.

[32] Victoria Police Criminal History Report: TB, 10. The terms of the bond/undertaking are not in evidence before the Tribunal.

[44] Respondent's Submissions on the Applicant's References dated 2 April 2026 ('Reference Submissions'), [3]-[5].

[47] The reference refers to 'court documents', but in context, it seems clear that this is intended as a reference to the Tribunal Book material

[49] RS, [55] (citing VQB v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VCAT 789, [36]).

[54] [2011] VSC 227; (2011) 34 VR 23 [91].

[56] [2021] VCAT 936 [140].