1. The standard of proof to which the Tribunal must be satisfied is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Tribunal is not required to adopt the rules of evidence or practices of the courts except to the extent it determines it should do so. There is little doubt that in matters of gravity and personal significance such as this application that the Tribunal needs to be satisfied on the evidence before it that the issues be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

Section 108(1) - Whether it is appropriate to give a WWC Clearance_**

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decisions to refuse to grant a WWC Clearance under s 105(1)(b). In reviewing such a decision, the Tribunal must do so in accordance with s 108.
2. Section 108 sets out several mandatory considerations. Pursuant to s 108(1), the first step in this analysis requires the Tribunal to determine whether it is appropriate to refuse to give a WWC Clearance, having regard to the matters in s 65(2).
3. Before turning to the s 65(2) factors, it is necessary to consider the general circumstances in which this application arises including, the striking out/withdrawal and the acquittal of the charges brought against the Applicant.
4. The Secretary referred to the Tribunal's approach to non-conviction charges as set out by Judge Hampel VP in QPS v Department of Justice and Community Safety,[30] with which I agree. The Tribunal can and must determine whether to place weight on the fact that charges have been laid,[31] and the weight to be placed will depend on the circumstances of the non-conviction charge.[32]
5. In MDE v Department of Justice and Community Safety ('MDE'),[33] the Tribunal considered what could possibly explain the acquittal, including a different standard of proof. Considering the evidence as a whole, it did not find the allegations were without foundation, nor did it find the allegations were well-founded. That left open the 'sufficient possibility' that a risk to the safety of children existed.[34]
6. In this case the grooming related non-conviction charge was determined by way of an acquittal following the testing of evidence. The other non-conviction charge was struck out/withdrawn at committal.
7. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to follow the MDE approach and find the allegations underlying the non-conviction charges were not without foundation given the Applicant had made admissions in respect to some of the conduct which is directly relevant and adverse to the Applicant having regard to s 65(2)(a) of the WS Act, in particular:
   • 64.1 he engaged in strategies and reward systems to improve behaviour of the child at school and at home, purchased food and goods, including a PlayStation, clothes and a teddy bear;
   • 64.2 he took the child on numerous outings and had the child stay over on several occasions;
   • 64.3 there were Facebook conversations which referred to the Applicant wanting to hug the child; and
   • 64.4 the Applicant sent the child messages that he 'loved' him.
8. In my assessment in relation to each of the specific matters raised the Applicant had a plausible and persuasive response.
9. The explanation of the mentoring arrangement, the full knowledge of the child's mother, and the modest nature of the 'rewards', are all factors which demonstrate to me a plausible alternative scenario. The explanation given in evidence as to the PlayStation arrangement diminishes what might at first instance appear to be an overly generous gift.
10. I do not consider outings either in their regularity, substance, or content to be inconsistent with a mentoring or 'Big Brother' relationship.
11. What might appear to be more problematic, being the child staying over with the Applicant, is also explained with sufficient and acceptable plausibility. There is little doubt that the child was one with behavioural issues who appeared to respond positively to the care and attention and discipline provided by the Applicant. From the transcript of the County Court proceeding, the VIT investigation and the cross-examination of the Applicant before me, I am satisfied that in respect of all the specific matters raised above there is a likely and innocent alternative characterisation of the relationship.
12. The submission on behalf of the Respondent references declarations of love and/or encouragement, and a desire by the Applicant to hug the child. Yet again, a plausible alternative explanation was given and I am satisfied this concern is overstated and is mischaracterised by the Respondent.
13. A significant consideration is the fact and the basis of the acquittal. It occurred after a full examination of the evidence and was not an acquittal which could be termed a 'technical' one. The fact that the jury returned the verdict within a very short space of time, said to be within 20 minutes, is a fact which I believe significant weight should be given. Equally, that the complainant either recanted or did not swear up to the basis of the allegations is important in this analysis.
14. I turn now to the s 65(2) factors.

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

1. Referring to the summary of the charges and the transcript of the County Court trial, the Respondent argued the allegations the subject of the non-conviction charges are allegations of serious sexual offences against a much younger child who was in the Applicant's care. It was submitted the entirety of the Applicant's conduct occurred in and was derived from his position as a teacher and it was conduct directed towards rewarding good behaviour at school.
2. On this basis it was argued that this was directly relevant to child-related work and fell squarely within the purpose of the WS Act to protect children from physical or sexual harm.
3. The age, power imbalance and responsibility between the Applicant and the child was also said to weigh against the Applicant.
4. As against these matters, given the acquittal and the circumstances referred to above, I do not consider the submissions of the Respondent persuasive in view of the explanation given by the Applicant and the outcome of the trial.
5. Whilst the relationship was formed as a result of the child being a student at the school, the mentoring did not occur whilst he was at the school, and I am satisfied that there was sufficient rigor in the arrangements put in place and knowledge and consent of the child's mother throughout this time.

(b) The period of time since the Applicant engaged in the conduct

1. A period of more than 8 years has elapsed. This is a significant period of time since the conduct was alleged to have occurred.[35]
2. During the intervening period the Applicant has not been the subject of any other criminal charges or offences. This factor must weigh in his favour.
3. He has been dismissed as a teacher from the DET and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. He has also been refused registration by the Tasmanian Teachers Registration Board and this refusal was affirmed by the Tasmanian Magistrates' Court. However, I am mindful that the factors taken into account by teaching registration bodies go beyond the factors which I am required to take into account in the assessment under the WS Act.
4. The Applicant is currently living in Tasmania where he is married and co-parenting his 13-year-old stepchild. He has been working as a Compliance Officer for local councils in Tasmania and this work is not focused on dealing with children although he holds a Working with Vulnerable People card issued by the relevant Tasmanian authority.
5. He is clearly involved with children through his relationship with his stepchild and even if his work is not focused on child-related activities, he is not immune from interactions with young children.
6. He has undertaken significant professional development work,[36] including sessions relating to ethics and professional boundary training. I have also had the opportunity to observe him and his answers to questions put to him in cross examination_._
7. I note that the Magistrate in Tasmania considered the Applicant had failed to learn from his past behaviour however, I am not of the same view.
8. I consider that there is sufficient material and sufficient time has passed to satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant has matured and demonstrated sufficient self-analysis to be well aware that however naïvely he took on the role of mentoring a difficult and troubled child and in respect of the other matters which are raised against him, that he understands the dangers and vulnerability teachers, in particular male teachers, may be presented with if they do not have the appropriate techniques at their disposal.

(c) and (d) Whether a conviction was imposed; the sentence imposed

(e) The ages of the Applicant and any alleged victim - s 65(2)(e)

1. At the time of the alleged conduct, the Applicant was aged 26 to 27 years old. The child was between 11 and 12 years old. The Respondent alleged that this age difference is significant with the Applicant being well into adulthood, having commenced a professional career and should have known better, weighs against the Applicant as it aggravates the power imbalance identified.
2. I observe from the evidence from the committal, especially that of the child's mother, that the child was not an immature or naïve and closeted child un-familiar with sexualised behaviour and was in a domestic environment which was somewhat challenging.
3. In my view, a young man aged middle to late 20s still has a level of maturity to attain. That said there is a difference between a child of 12 and a grown man of 27. Additionally, his status as a teacher and as a man of this age compared to a child finishing primary school is one of obvious power imbalance. Nonetheless, in the circumstances a young man who is prepared to take on a troubled young child and provide some mentoring and guidance is something which should be encouraged. There is little doubt that the child's mother was grateful for the guidance and assistance the Applicant gave her with respect to her child.

(f) Whether the conduct has been decriminalised

(g) The Applicant's behaviour since the alleged conduct

1. The Applicant has sought psychological counselling and assistance and has undertaken significant professional development. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to find that he has not sufficiently understood the impact of boundary breaching, nor been sufficiently rehabilitated. This submission sits in conflict with much of the evidence currently before the Tribunal.
2. In April 2018, the Applicant undertook an independent health assessment with Dr Gregor Schutz who found the Applicant's Adjustment Disorder was resolving and he was not suffering from any impairment to his mental health that would contribute to his suitability to teach.[37]
3. In a letter signed and dated 31 March 2022, Ms Tara Couzens, Psychologist stated the Applicant has a 'sound understanding' of the factors that precipitated his workplace issues and he recognises that naivety and inexperience in his teaching role contributed to his poor decision making. Moreover, the Applicant has taken proactive steps to address these factors and demonstrate his capacity to maintain strong professional boundaries.[38]
4. From June 2018 to October 2018, the Applicant undertook Ethics and Professional Boundary Training. This training was conducted under the close supervision of his colleague, Ms Pamela Munro-Smith. At the conclusion of the training, Ms Munro-Smith confirmed the Applicant's readiness for reinstatement of his teacher registration noting his unequivocal commitment to implementing the insights learned.[39]
5. I do not consider the findings of Dr Schutz, being that he could not answer the question as to whether the Applicant was fit and suitable to teach in 2018,[40] to be of any utility in 2023.
6. The criticism of the independence of Ms Munro-Smith and the findings of the Magistrate in Tasmania are again in the context of teaching registration which as I have previously identified, is an assessment which goes beyond the matters that I am required to consider under the WS Act.
7. The findings of the Magistrate are not favourable to the Applicant, but in his oral evidence he appeared to me to accept that what he was criticised about were findings open to the Magistrate. He provided an explanation, which I found plausible as to why he redacted some of the report however, this behaviour does demonstrate deception as the Magistrate found. Notwithstanding this adverse finding by the Magistrate, I do not consider this material determinative in the context of the demeanour and the explanation given by the Applicant before me.

(h) The likelihood of a future threat to a child

1. In Maleckas (LKQ) v Secretary, Department of Justice,[41] Kyrou J discussed the meaning of 'the likelihood of the future threat to a child caused by the applicant' and said the expression 'the likelihood of future threat' meant no more than the 'the chance of future threat' and that where that chance is minimal, consideration may favour the applicant. The greater the chance, the less favourable consideration from the applicant's perspective.[42]
2. Any chance of this future threat irrespective of its magnitude is relevant for the purposes of this factor.[43] Factors such as rehabilitation, remorse and evidence of changes are important when considering the chance of future risk.[44]
3. Whether the applicant has insight into the conduct or has accepted responsibility for it is also relevant.[45] Expert and non-expert evidence may be considered in the question of likelihood of risk.
4. Ultimately it is for the Applicant to show that he does not pose a risk of harm to children - not the Respondent.[46]
   • (2) Psychological evidence
5. The Respondent relied upon the nature and number of complaints of inappropriate touching of children, as evidence to demonstrate there is a likelihood of a future threat to a child if the Applicant were to engage in child-related work.[47]
6. In 2018, the VIT arranged for the Applicant to undertake a clinical forensic psychological assessment administered by Dr Lisa Warren. Dr Warren recommended the reinstatement of the Applicant's teaching registration not be considered as he would be an unacceptable risk to vulnerable primary school children until he undertakes supervision and the supervisor reports to the VIT that they are satisfied that any deficits in his insights, professional boundaries and ethics have been sufficiently addressed.[48]
7. As noted above, Ms Munro-Smith confirmed the Applicant's readiness for reinstatement of his teacher registration when he completed professional development training. This conclusion directly conflicts with Dr Warren's recommendation. The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the risk is sufficiently abated, in light of Ms Munro-Smith's lack of objectivity and observations by the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania where her evidence was not accepted.
8. The Applicant relied on a report from his treating psychologist, Tara Couzens.[49] This report was also criticised by the Respondent because Ms Couzens' treatment of the Applicant was for depression and anxiety and not specifically in terms of risk associated in contact with children.
9. The Applicant also consulted a Forensic Psychologist, Ms Pamela Matthews, who prepared a report in March 2019. The report provides a favourable assessment of the Applicant expressing the opinion that he has 'extensive insight' into his conduct and that he is 'highly unlikely to further cross professional boundaries in or outside the workplace'.[50]
10. The Respondent contends Dr Warren's opinion should be preferred to that of Ms Matthews, given the limitations identified in the methodology of her report.[51] Specifically, Ms Matthews characterised the allegations of inappropriate sexual contact with children as 'thoroughly investigated unsubstantiated allegations'.[52] The Respondent relied upon the findings of Ms Elaine Vitale and an admission by the Applicant to discredit this observation of Ms Matthews.[53]
11. The Respondent further urged the Tribunal to give significant weight to the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania's finding that the Applicant's actions in inappropriately crossing teacher-student boundaries would be unlikely to change in the future.[54]
12. I am not satisfied that this factor is adverse to the Applicant.

1. The Applicant has made statements and submissions in support of his application and provided favourable references. This included three positive character references from peers involved in the Scouting Association where the Applicant has over 15 years' experience helping and mentoring many children.
2. Apart from the Applicant himself, no witnesses were called to give oral evidence.
3. The Tribunal must consider the whole of the material and in this regard, the material provided by the Applicant is not unexpectedly in his favour. He further provides explanation for several of the matters that are in contention.

(j) Any other material the Tribunal considers relevant

1. The 2011 allegations (which predate the non-conviction charges) have been canvassed in detail by the parties. Collectively, the allegations contend the Applicant inappropriately touched three male students who were in his grade 2 class at the primary school in Mount Eliza throughout 2011.
2. The allegations can be summarised as follows:
   • 113.1 Child 1 - alleged that on five occasions between Term 2 and Term 4, the Applicant rubbed his back, stomach, and groin area through his school pants.
   • 113.2 Child 2 - a witness alleged they saw the Applicant sitting in a chair with his legs spread wide, allowing Child 2 to stand between his legs whereby the student's body was close to the Applicant's groin and inner thigh.
   • 113.3 Child 3 - during either Term 2 or Term 3 in 2011, a witness alleged they saw the Applicant rubbing the student's stomach while the student was seated in a chair and the Applicant was crouched down beside him.
3. In response to the 2011 allegations, three separate investigations occurred.
   • (1) The DET Investigation

• 115 When the 2011 allegations came to light, an initial investigation was conducted by the DET and it involved a two-step process; firstly, Ms Elaine Vitale completed a preliminary investigation at the primary school and then she reported back to a final decision maker, Mr Peter Greenwell, who was the Regional Director for the DET's southern metropolitan region.[55]

1. Ms Vitale's investigators report (the 'Vitale Report'),[56] found that whilst there was no conclusive evidence to substantiate the allegations made by Child 1, on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that the evidence supported this allegation. Moreover, the evidence supported the allegations that the Applicant engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Child 2 and Child 3.
2. The Vitale Report found the Applicant had committed acts of misconduct and was unfit on account of character or conduct to discharge his duties, thus recommending action be taken under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (the 'Education Act').[57]
3. Upon review of the Vitale Report, Mr Greenwell found only two of the three allegations were substantiated, specifically the contact with Child 2 and Child 3. He commented that:

while physical contact with children is inadvisable and should be closely scrutinised, in my view, placing your hand on a child's stomach or chest to calm them falls outside the range of permissible physical contact even allowing for the occasional excesses to which teachers may resort.[58]

1. On this basis, Mr Greenwell considered it would be open to him to find that the Applicant conducted himself in an improper manner, but his conduct was not disgraceful or unbecoming.[59]
2. In assessing what action ought to be taken, he placed significant weight on the Applicant's inexperience as a teacher, particularly in managing a child who had significant behavioural issues (referring here to Child 2). The favourable references provided also testified to the Applicant's considerable involvement leading children in the Scouting Association from which no allegations of inappropriate conduct had arisen.
3. Given these mitigating factors, Mr Greenwell ultimately concluded the Applicant's conduct was not of a sufficient level of impropriety to warrant any disciplinary action under the Education Act, [60] and he had no reservations about the Applicant continuing as a teacher.[61] However, the Applicant was specifically advised by Mr Greenwell 'to exercise caution in his interactions with students, particularly physical interactions'.[62]
   • (2) Victoria Police Investigation
4. In November 2011, Victoria Police investigated allegations that the Applicant indecently assaulted Child 1. This arose after Child 1 disclosed the Applicant's conduct to his mother, and his parents chose to report this information to police.[63]
5. Ultimately, the police investigation did not proceed said to be because the family of Child 1 did not want to put their son through a court process, and they were relocating overseas.[64]
   • (3) The VIT Investigation
6. When the family of Child 1 returned to Australia in 2017, the VIT conducted a review of this matter.[65] On 14 August 2019, the VIT's Professional Conduct Committee determined the matter be referred for a formal hearing.[66]
7. Importantly, the scope of the hearing is confined to the allegations made by Child 1, the non-conviction charges, and an allegation that the Applicant is unfit to teach given his unwillingness or inability to maintain professional boundaries. This hearing has been deferred pending the current proceedings before the Tribunal.

1. The Respondent submits the 2011 allegations are directly relevant because they demonstrate separate incidents where the Applicant in his capacity as a teacher is accused of inappropriately touching children. Furthermore, these allegations alone, and in the context of the Applicant's conduct underlying the non-conviction charges, should lead the Tribunal towards considering it is appropriate to refuse to grant the WWC Clearance.

1. A significant amount of information is contained in the Tribunal Book in respect of the allegations made by Child 1 and I have reviewed the material which is before me.
2. Whilst it was submitted by the Respondent that Child 1 is a credible complainant and that his allegations have been consistent, there is equally information before the Tribunal to demonstrate credibility on behalf of the Applicant and a plausible explanation as to a different version of events.
3. The Applicant vigorously denies any inappropriate touching of Child 1 and gave oral evidence as to the issues he had with the mother of this child.
4. I am satisfied that the Applicant's explanation of these allegations. The allegations did not proceed to criminal charges, nor were they affirmed by the DET.

1. The allegations concerning Child 2 and Child 3 were raised by the Respondent and put to the Applicant in cross examination.
2. In the case of Child 2, the Applicant gave evidence as to the difficulty of managing this child given his behavioural difficulties and that his mode of managing the child when the child needed time out was for the child to come to him directly. I found this explanation highly plausible. Examination of the findings of Mr Greenwell accepted that this was not an appropriate manner to deal with the child, but it did not reach the threshold of misconduct and he directed no further action be taken.
3. There is no evidence anywhere in the material to demonstrate that Child 2 felt unsafe or uncomfortable.
4. The allegation that the Applicant rubbed the stomach of Child 3 was also dealt with in the findings of Mr Greenwell. Again, I do not consider given the explanation provided by the Applicant that Child 3 felt uncomfortable or unsafe. In relation to both Child 2 and Child 3, I am satisfied the evidence is not persuasive against the Applicant.
5. I note that both these allegations relate to a period of more than a decade ago, led to no disciplinary action, and were in the context of an inexperienced teacher attempting to deal with young children who were difficult to manage, including a child with complex behavioural needs.
6. The VIT does not consider the Applicant fit to teach. The Respondent argued that it was relevant that the teacher regulator in Victoria, the VIT, does not consider the Applicant fit to teach and as noted above, there is an extant hearing into the matter that has been deferred pending these proceedings.
7. I do not consider that the view of the VIT in respect of fitness to teach is determinative, nor does it require the same considerations as the Tribunal must consider under the WS Act. The Tribunal may take note of these views but it must take care to assess the application in accordance with the legislation and not just adopt another entity's assessment.

Section 108(2)(a) - The 'reasonable parent test'

1. As Judge McNamara said in VQB v the Secretary to the Department of Justice:[67]

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. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area some over optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.[68]

1. There is no doubt as a matter of human nature that people are more cautious and concerned about their child above others. The 'reasonable person' or as it has been termed, the 'reasonable parent test' places a more onerous test on the Applicant for an assessment notice than if the subsection had said a reasonable person would allow 'a child to have direct contact with the Applicant'.[69]
2. The reasonable parent test is an objective one which relies on a reasonable person having knowledge of all the facts and surrounding circumstances.[70]
3. The application must be refused if the Applicant does not pass the 'reasonable parent test'.
4. I accept that a reasonable parent would understand and take into account in their assessment the circumstances of the Applicant's acquittal and the charge that was struck out/withdrawn. The reasonable parent would have faith in the jury system and be conscious that the Applicant had no previous or subsequent findings of guilt or similar conduct. A reasonable parent would give credence to the Applicant's references, time spent working while holding an assessment notice, his involvement in the Scout movement, and his current personal circumstances with respect to his stepchild.
5. The so-called pattern of inappropriate contact with children in respect of the 2011 allegations was of a limited nature and time when he was an inexperienced teacher dealing with difficult and challenging children. His subsequent work on self-improvement and the passage of time since passed demonstrates to me that a reasonable person or parent would have confidence to allow their child to be supervised by the Applicant in any type of child-related work. His personal circumstances and positive parenting is also relevant.
6. In respect of the reasonable parent wanting to avoid their child being put in any circumstances that would amount to grooming having regard to the nature of grooming as described by Dr Warren, could not fail to be persuaded by the very swift jury acquittal, the explanation given by the Applicant and his appearance before the Tribunal.
7. In Tasmania, Magistrate Webster concluded the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be a teacher, nor was he of good character.[71] The Magistrate was particularly persuaded by the findings that the Applicant's conduct 'bordered on forgery' and that his actions were unlikely to change in the future'.[72]
8. The Respondent submitted the Magistrates' findings would lead a reasonable parent to be highly suspicious of the Applicant, particularly given his attempts to 'bully' regulators,[73] whose remit is to protect students. Similarly to the VIT investigation, I do not consider Magistrate Webster's findings to be determinative as that proceeding did not require the same considerations the Tribunal must take into account under the WS Act. Another view of the finding of the Magistrate as to the 'bullying' of regulators could also be seen as being a robust approach of the Applicant's right to defend himself.
9. Considering the case law, the evidence before the Tribunal and from my observations of the Applicant, I am confident that a reasonable parent fully appraised of the circumstances would allow their child to have direct contact with the Applicant while he was engaged in any type of child-related work.

1. In ZZ v Secretary to the Department of Justice & Anor[74], Bell J said that considering whether there would be an 'unjustifiable risk':

requires the tribunal to make a rational, objective and evidence-based assessment of the nature and degree of the risk (if any) which giving the notice would pose in the given facts and circumstances. The concept of 'unjustifiable risk' incorporates notions of weighing, balancing and proportionality. Taking into account the considerations specified in s 13(2), the seriousness of the potential harm must be assessed against the probability of it occurring. The tribunal's risk assessment must be an evaluative judgment about whether giving the notice would not pose an 'unjustifiable risk' to the safety of children...[75]

1. In weighing up the evidence, emphasis must be placed on the nature and gravity of the conduct considered in the context of the Applicant's child-related work as a teacher at that time. Furthermore, a significant period has now passed and in the intervening years the Applicant has educated himself by undertaking professional development training. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. Even if the Tribunal does not determine under ss 108(2)(a) and 108(2)(b) that it would be appropriate to refuse to give a WWC Clearance, it must refuse to give the clearance unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the clearance.
2. The Respondent submitted that granting the clearance would not further the public interest in Victoria because the Applicant has no immediate plans to return to the State, nor would it necessarily allow him to return to teaching because the VIT proceedings remain on foot.
3. I do not consider this submission to be persuasive. I do not consider an immediate opportunity or even a desire to return to teaching alone as being the only relevant consideration in whether the WWC Clearance is in the public interest. A personal choice of occupation is not a determining consideration in whether it would be in the public interest to give a WWC Clearance. There are a number of other occupations and activities which rightly or wrongly rely on the WWC regime.
4. As noted above, the Applicant co-parents a stepchild and he has expressed a strong desire to adopt. The Applicant submitted the adoption would allow the child to pursue appropriate medical intervention and contribute positively towards their overall mental-health and wellbeing. Whilst there was no clear evidence about whether the refusal of a WWC Clearance would be barrier to, or prevent adoption as an outcome, I am satisfied that an adverse finding as to a WWC Clearance is not likely to assist this pursuit. Any barrier to this course potentially occasioned by this circumstance would not be in the public interest. I note that the purposes of the WS Act[76] includes protecting children from sexual or physical harm by providing for screening of persons who work with, or care for, children.
5. In delicate circumstances such as this, I have concluded that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that to refuse the application would not be in the public interest.

1. For the foregoing reasons I will allow the application and direct the Secretary issue a WWC Clearance forthwith.

[1] Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) ('WS Act') s 1(b).

[3] Letter issuing Interim WWC Exclusion from Working with Children Check Victoria ('WWCCV') to the Applicant, 8 March 2022, 5.

[4] Victorian Institute of Teaching, 'Opening Submissions', in the matter of a Formal Hearing by a Panel appointed under s 2.6.42 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic), Case nos. 2910 & 3935, 15 November 2019, 11.

[5] Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety ('the DJCS'), 'Respondent's Submissions opposing the WWC clearance', Submission in TXD v Secretary to the DJCS, VCAT Proceeding No. Z379/2022, 17 November 2022, [8] ('Respondent's Submissions').

[6] Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) s 21(1)(d), ('WWC Act').

[8] Letter issuing Negative Notice from WWCCV to the Applicant, 9 September 2015.

[9] Working with Children Check Unit, 'ACIC Jurisdiction Results', 28 January 2022, 1.

[11] Respondent's Submissions (n 5) [15].

[12] TXD v Teachers Registration Board [2020] TASMC, [85] ('TXD v Teachers Registration Board').

[14] TXD, 'Submissions on behalf of the Applicant TXD', Submission in TXD v Secretary to the DJCS, VCAT Proceeding No. Z379/2022, 2 November 2022, [6] ('Applicant's Submissions').

[27] Applicant's Submissions (n 14) [10]-[11].

[29] Letter issuing WWC Exclusion from WWCCV to the Applicant, 9 May 2022, 3.

[30] (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 477, [60].

[31] TVC v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 1035, [12].

[32] JDH v Secretary to the Department of Justice & Regulation (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 18.

[33] (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 742 ('MDE').

[35] Victoria Police Charge Sheet and Summons, 10 August 2015.

[36] TXD, Summary of Professional Development Certificates, Hours, and Reflections, 1-20.

[37] Report by Dr Lisa Warren, Clinical/Forensic Psychologist to Victorian Institute of Teaching, 'Communication from TXD', 15 November 2019, 6; Report by Pamela Matthews, Forensic Psychologist, 'Amended Report', 8 March 2019, 6 ('Matthews Report').

[38] Letter from Tara Couzens, Psychologist, 31 March 2022 ('Couzens Letter').

[39] Letter from Pamela Munro-Smith to WWCCV, 30 March 2022, 3.

[40] Letter from TXD to WWCCV, 'Response by TXD to the Interim WWC Exclusion', 7 April 2022, 5.

[41] 2011 VSC 227 ('Maleckas').

[44] QTR v Secretary to the Department of Justice (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 417, 98.

[46] DBN v Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 143, [62-63].

[47] Respondent's Submissions (n 5) [66].

[48] Report by Dr Lisa Warren, Clinical/Forensic Psychologist to Victorian Institute of Teaching, 'Clinical Forensic Psychological Assessment', 19 June 2018, 12 ('Warren Report No 1').

[51] Report of Dr Lisa Warren, Clinical/Forensic Psychologist to Victorian Institute of Teaching, 'Review of Matthews Report', 23 December 2019.

[53] Respondent Submissions (n 5) [73].

[54] TXD v Teachers Registration Board (n 12) [84].

[55] Letter from Cara O'Shanassy, Legal Manager at Victorian Institute of Teaching to WWCCV, 3 March 2022.

[56] Investigators Report by Elaine Vitale, Nominated Investigator for the Department of Education and Training, undated ('Vitale Report').

[58] Report by Peter Greenwell, Regional Director of Southern Metropolitan Region, 15 May 2012, 8 ('Greenwell Report').

[61] Email from Peter Greenwell to TXD, 12 November 2012.

[64] Letter from Victorian Institute of Teaching to WWCCV, 10 February 2022, 3.

[67] (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789.

[69] OYJ v Secretary to the Department of Justice & Regulation (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 33, [93].

[70] PQR v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation (No 2) [2017] VSC 514, [57].

[71] TXD v Teachers Registration Board (n 12) [85].

[74] [2013] VSC 267.