1. The Tribunal directs the respondent to give a Working with Children Assessment Notice to the applicant

1. On 20 April 1999, NJL was found guilty in the Magistrates' Court of one count of 'indecent assault'.
2. In 2015, NJL applied to the Working with Children Unit for an Assessment Notice under the Working with Children Act 2005 ('the Act"). On 31 August 2015, his application was refused and he was given a Negative Notice.
3. NJL applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision and the matter proceeded to hearing before me on 3 May 2016.
4. I heard evidence from NJL and his wife and niece. I also received a psychological report from Dr Aleksandra Belofastov dated 6 April 2016.
5. At the conclusion of the evidence, I directed the respondent to give a Working with Children Assessment Notice to NJL and provided oral reasons for doing so. The respondent requested written reasons for my decision which I now produce.

1. NJL's application is a category A application for the purposes of the Working with Children Act 2005 ("the Act")
2. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear applications for review on category A applications is contained in section 26A of the Act which sets out the following three-tiered approach, which I must follow to determine whether NJL as an applicant for an Assessment Notice is suitable to work with children:

(1) I must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give an Assessment Notice, unless satisfied that giving the Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children having regard to any matters under section 26A(3) of the Act.

(2) In satisfying myself that giving an Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children I must also be satisfied under section 26A(4) of the Act that -

(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with NJL that was not directly supervised by another person while NJL was engaged in any type of child-related work; or

(b) NJL's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

(3) Even if I do not determine under subsection (3) or (4) that it would be appropriate to refuse to give an Assessment Notice, I must determine under section 26A(5) of the Act that that it is appropriate to refuse to give the Assessment Notice unless satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the Assessment Notice.

1. I turn then to a consideration of these factors.

(a) Nature and gravity of the offence and its relevance to child-related work

1. NJL agreed with the following summary obtained by the respondent from Victoria Police:

Victim was at a party. A male (applicant) known to victim has picked her up in a bear hug and has carried her to the side of the house and started kissing her around the face and neck area. Victim was resisting. Applicant has carried victim to side of house where he has pinned her against the wall of the house and has continued to kiss her and has put his hand down the front of victim's pants. Male was pushed away by victim who left and went into house. Male was confronted by others at party and made admissions re-indecent assault.

1. I accept that at the time of the offending NJL had been drinking and was heavily intoxicated. I accept that although his memory of the sexual assault is for this reason hazy, that he is nevertheless extremely remorseful for his conduct, which he recognises was completely unacceptable. In his evidence before me NJL showed empathy for his victim and demonstrated an understanding of the impact his offending would have had on her. This was consistent with his very candid statement dated 8 April 2016.
2. I accept NJL's evidence that the gravity of his conduct sank in shortly after the commission of the offence. He has always admitted that he offended.
3. When confronted at the party, he made admissions to his conduct
4. I also accept that NJL made full admissions to police immediately following the offence.
5. On forming a relationship with his now wife, in the months that followed this offending, he also made frank disclosures to her about what he had done.
6. NJL fully realises the seriousness of his offending. He recognises the relevance of his offending to child related work in the context of the protective legislative regime. He knew at the time of his offending that the victim was a child, and acknowledged very shortly after the seriousness of the offending.

(b) The period of time since the applicant committed the offence

1. The offence took place on 23 May 1998, nearly 18 years ago.
2. NJL had never previously committed such an offence. Although in 1998, NJL was found guilty of stealing a shade cloth from a high school, I did not consider that to be relevant for the purposes of this application.
3. Significantly, there has been no subsequent offending of a similar nature. Although he has committed a number of driving offences, I did not consider those offences relevant for the purposes of this application.
4. The passage of time in this case lends great confidence to the likelihood that NJL will not reoffend.
5. I accept that NJL is now a very different person to the person who offended so gravely in 1999. I made the comment in my oral reasons, that it is rare to see such a transformative rehabilitation taking place almost immediately after the offending behaviour. I return to this under (g).

(c) Whether a finding of guilt or conviction was recorded for the offence

1. NJL pleaded and was found guilty of one count of 'indecent assault'. No conviction was recorded.

1. NJL was fined $500
2. The imposition of a seemingly light sentence for the offence is of course in no way indicative of the lack of seriousness.

(e) The ages of the applicant and victim at the time the applicant committed the offence

1. NJL was aged 19 years at the time of the commission of the offences. His victim was aged 16. I accept that in the context of the offending that the victim and NJL were in the same broad age bracket, such that the offending in this case was not indicative of any sexual attraction to children by NJL.

(f) Whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence has been decriminalised

(g) The applicant's behaviour since he committed the offence

1. I accept that within days of committing the offence NJL realised the enormity of what he had done.
2. I accept that NJL is very remorseful for his conduct and fully understands the impact his behaviour had on his victim.
3. He has turned his life around.
4. Within months of the offending he formed a relationship with his now wife. She had two young children. He formed the resolve at that time to become a family man and to support her and her children to the best of his abilities. He determined to stop his heavy drinking. He determined that he was going to be a good father figure to the children and not lead by the negative examples he had himself grown up with.
5. He has been extraordinarily successful in his resolve. NJL's wife, gave strong character evidence. Before forming a relationship with NJL, she had grown up living next door to him. She was aware of the violence and alcoholism that surrounded his upbringing. She was extremely proud of her husband, and the man he has become. The deep love between them and their joint commitment to their children and their work was evident. I accepted the evidence of NRL's wife that he has been an "awesome" father to her children and to the children they subsequently had together. There have been a number of significant hurdles for the family to overcome due to the health of their children. NJL gave evidence about the challenging routines the couple face in meeting their children's needs. His evidence was humbling - a matter of fact account, without complaint, of getting through challenging times in a strong partnership with his wife. NJL and his wife work together as a team, in what must be sometimes extremely trying circumstances, to ensure the best for their children. The couple also work together in their own business.
6. Extraordinarily given their already full and complex lifestyles, NJL and his wife wish to host international students. They have, through their niece seen the benefits of international student exchange programmes and feel they would have much to offer. They also feel their family would benefit from the cultural exchange of ideas.

(h) The likelihood of any future threat to a child caused by the applicant

1. I am satisfied that the offending was isolated.
2. There has been no subsequent (like) offending nor was there any previous such offending.
3. NJL is now aged 37 years.
4. He no longer drinks to excess.
5. He has a strong relationship with his wife.
6. He is a devoted father to his children
7. He is committed to his business which he operates with his wife.
8. He has turned his life around to ensure the best for his family in stark contrast to his own troubled upbringing.
9. Following the death of his father some years ago, combined with other stressful events, NJL commenced taking antidepressants. He still takes antidepressants. It is noteworthy that during this troubled time, he sought appropriate professional help and did not revert to alcohol.
10. I read a comprehensive psychological report, dated 6 April 2016, from Dr Aleksandra Belofastov who is a clinical and forensic psychologist.
11. Dr Belofastov had NJL complete the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS), the Burt Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III in order to further elaborate on his psycho pathology and personality functioning.
12. She made a risk assessment using the Static 99R, Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF).
13. Dr Belofastov formed the opinion that NJL's risk of future sexual violence was low.
14. She also formed the opinion that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that he presents a particular risk toward children in the community.
15. I accept Dr Delofastov's assessment in which she also emphasised: the lack of evidence of significant sexual violence history, that there had been no further such offending, the lack of evidence of sexual deviance, the stable and supportive long-term marital relationship, NJL's expressed attitudes that do not support or condone sexual violence, his restricted alcohol consumption for many years, and evidence of future plans and goals and positive familial and non-intimate relationships.
16. The report was extremely comprehensive. Given my observations of NJL and the evidence before me, I was satisfied that I could comfortably rely on the findings as articulated by Dr Belofastov in her report.
17. NJL does not have any history of mental illness or drug abuse. His days of alcohol abuse are well behind him. He has stable employment history and a loving supportive family
18. I am satisfied that NJL does not pose a future threat to children.

(i) Any information given by the applicant in relation to the application and

(j) Any other matters VCAT considers relevant to the application

1. In satisfying myself that giving an Assessment Notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, I must be satisfied in accordance with section 26B(2) of the Act that a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with NJL, that was not directly supervised by another person, whilst he was engaged in any type of child-related work and that his engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
2. I was so satisfied.
3. I consider that a reasonable person would accept that the offending was isolated, and that NJL does not pose an unjustifiable risk to children.
4. The reasonable person will always be cautious about claims of redemption when considering the protection of children. The reasonable person will not, however, turn a blind eye to demonstrable rehabilitation and always deny an individual the opportunity to work with children because of an isolated incident of offending.

1. Finally I considered whether in all of the circumstances it is in the public interest to give an Assessment Notice to NJL.
2. I was so satisfied.
3. NJL is self-employed in an industry which occasionally requires him to work on school sites. He is therefore required to have a current working with children assessment. I accept that he does not wish to have to turn down work and that if he does so, that there will be a flow-on effect to other contracts.
4. He wishes to engage fully with his own children and attend school camps and ensure that the parental responsibilities are shared equally with his wife.
5. I also accept that in order to host international students, he requires an Assessment Notice.
6. I consider that it is in the public interest for NJL engage fully in the workplace and broader community. It is in the public interest for a rehabilitated person to re-engage fully in the community when he or she does not pose a threat to children and there is no unjustifiable risk to children in their engaging with them.

1. It is for these reasons that I directed the respondent to give NJL a Working with Children Assessment Notice_._