1. Under section 51(2)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the respondent's 4 December 2023 decision to give the applicant a WWC Exclusion is set aside and substituted with a decision that the respondent give the applicant a WWC Clearance.

1. This proceeding concerns an application to review a decision the Secretary[1] to the Department of Government Services made on 4 December 2023 to give Christopher Wilson a WWC Exclusion under the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) (WSA).
2. The Secretary's decision was made having regard to Wilson's criminal offending which is known as 'Category B' conduct.
3. Wilson applied for a WWC Clearance so he can extend his work in recreation and sporting activities to include children and to work in a voluntary capacity with his Church.
4. In WSA cases concerning WWC Clearances, all decisions must be made having regard to the paramount consideration which is the protection of children from sexual or physical harm.[2]
5. Wilson's Criminal History runs to approximately 10 pages.[3] The offending occurred from around November 1993 when Wilson was 16 years old to November 2020 when he was 44 years old, with a break of about six years between 2012 and 2018.
6. Relevant to Wilson and the paramount consideration, there was no dispute that:
   • Wilson has never offended against a child in any way;
   • Wilson has never engaged in any sexual offending against any adult or child;
   • Wilson's offending has, on every occasion, occurred while he was intoxicated as a result of his past abuse of alcohol and cannabis: that is, he has never offended when not intoxicated; and
   • The available evidence indicates that none of Wilson's offending was in the presence of children.
7. Wilson has not offended for close to five years now. Having started drinking alcohol when he was around 14 to 16 years old, Wilson has been sober since October 2021, now almost four years.
8. The most serious criminal offending was as follows:

Unlawful assault (2 charges) and Contravene Family Violence Intervention Order

Intentionally Cause Injury and Unlawful Assault (2 charges)

1. There was other historic offending and court matters concerning family violence.
2. Wilson pleaded guilty to all of the charges brought against him over the 20 plus years.
3. Wilson has very limited memory of his past conduct. His evidence was that he would usually find out what he had done after sobering up in custody and reading the charge sheet.
4. At the time a number of offences were committed, including the most recent in November 2020, he was homeless, living in a tent in sand dunes in regional Victoria.
5. The most recent family violence related offending was in September 2020 and involved his then 18 year old Niece. She gave evidence before me, explained the circumstances (which differed from the facts to which Wilson pleaded guilty) and gave evidence she was not afraid of him or harmed by him in any way. The Niece gave evidence that Wilson was intoxicated at the time the events occurred.
6. There was other family violence related offending in February 2002. Wilson was found to have assaulted and injured his mother. Wilson's mother has now passed away but his Sister, who attended her mother's home soon after the events occurred, gave evidence about what she saw (see [76] below).
7. Despite his chronic and severe alcoholism (an Alcohol Use Disorder), Wilson has had long periods of employment, mainly as a butcher, having undertaken an apprenticeship when he was 16 years old. Before he was prohibited from working with children under the WSA, he worked in an outdoor education business, assisting teaching surfing to adults.
8. Since around October 2021, Wilson has completely rebuilt his life, reconnecting with his family and becoming an active and committed Christian. At the hearing I heard evidence from family members who described his as a different person. I heard evidence from members of his Church who described the person they have known for the last two to three years as calm and thoughtful and focussed on helping others, including people who are experiencing homelessness.
9. Wilson is supported in his application for a WWC Clearance by his Employer, on whose property he now lives. The Employer described Wilson as being like a member of his family, interacting and involved with him, his wife, their young children and his elderly parents.
10. Wilson's wish to engage in voluntary work at his Church is supported by leaders of the Church community.
11. While the Church community strictly abides by the guidelines for churches that came from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (including all volunteers being required to hold a WWC Clearance and no adults to be alone with children), none of the Church related witnesses had any concerns about Wilson working directly with children. In their eyes, he is in no different position to any other person who wishes to volunteer. Despite having some knowledge of his past offending and a good awareness of his past Alcohol Use Disorder, they supported his application for a WWC Clearance.
12. As to the risk of Wilson engaging in future violent or any other offending, consulting clinical and forensic psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins has assessed that risk to be 'low'.[4] Cummins concluded that the primary risk factor for any further offending is a return to alcohol dependency or illicit drug use.
13. The Secretary conceded that Wilson 'does not pose a risk to children when sober' however, it submitted that he posed a risk to adults and children when intoxicated. The Secretary submitted that Wilson had not yet demonstrated he could maintain his sobriety in the long term and so there remained a risk that he would relapse and then potentially engage in conduct which could harm children.
14. Having regard to the material in the parties' joint Tribunal Book (TB), the evidence I heard from Wilson and six other witnesses at the hearing and the parties' submissions, I have decided that Wilson is to be given a WWC Clearance.
15. It is convenient to note here that I have had regard to the parties' written and oral submissions when making my decision. Those included reference to several cases on the basis they were comparable (or not). Several of those involved offending against children, which is not the case for Wilson. I have not addressed the cases individually because, as would be expected, the facts in each differed from those before me and my task is to assess Wilson's specific circumstances against all the factors and tests in the WSA. Finally, I note that Wilson's submissions included discussion of the reasoning in the decision to give him a WWC Exclusion. While I have noted the substance of matters raised, given my task is merits review, I have not addressed the particular submissions unless they otherwise arose before me.

1. A decision by the Secretary to give a WWC exclusion on a WWC Category B application is reviewable by this Tribunal under section 105(1)(b) of the WS Act.
2. Under section 107(1) of the WS Act, the Tribunal must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give a WWC Clearance unless satisfied that giving the clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, having regard to any matters to which the Secretary must have regard under section 63(1).
3. In addition, under section 107(2) of the WS Act, the Tribunal is required to, in satisfying itself that giving a WWC Clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, find that:

(a) 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; and

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

1. Section 107(3) of the WS Act says that, even if the Tribunal is satisfied under subsections (1) and (2) that giving a WWC Clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, it 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.
2. As a result, I am required to consider the overarching section 107(1) test in light of the matters in section 63(1), the reasonable person test (under section 107(2)(a)), the unjustifiable risk test (under section 107(2)(b)) and the public interest test (under section 107(3)).
3. It is convenient to address a preliminary issue now.
4. As referred to above, Cummins prepared two reports, the first dated 28 March 2024[5] (First Cummins' Report) and the second dated 4 June 2025 (Second Cummins' Report).
5. The Secretary put Wilson's solicitor on notice that Cummins was required for cross-examination but he was not called. I was informed that was because Wilson was unable to afford the associated fees. In the Secretary's counsel's oral submissions, I was informed about the matters which would have been canvassed with Cummins to clarify the basis for certain statements and opinions he expressed in his Reports. With Cummins not called, it was submitted that I should give less weight to the two Reports.
6. My approach has been to give weight to Cummins' description of the factual matters Wilson spoke about during the assessments as they provide Wilson's version of events, with greater weight being given to matters which were supported by Wilson's evidence before me or in materials in the TB. I have also given weight to those parts of the Cummins' Reports where Cummins has given his professional opinion as to diagnoses and other matters which fall within his extensive professional experience. I have treated with caution opinions Cummins' expressed about the factors I am required to make findings on under the WSA. I otherwise address the Secretary's submissions on the Reports in the body of these Reasons.
7. I start with the factors to be considered under section 63(1) of the WSA by reference to materials in the parties' TB and the evidence given before me.

The nature and gravity of the offence and its relevance to child-related work - section 63(1)(a)

1. One of the offences that led to Wilson's application being classified as Category B concerned events on 19 November 2020 which led to a charge of make threat to kill. The circumstances were described as follows by the Police Information Liaison Office (PILO) as follows:[6]

On the19 November 2020 at approximately 2200hrs, [Wilson] approached the 4 victims at the top of the stairs that access the beach from a main car park. [Wilson] followed the victims to their vehicle and began waving the knife around. [Wilson] lunged a few times at victims which caused them to flee. As the victims fled, [Wilson] the boot of their vehicle. Stabbing the vehicle so hard it has caused a hole in the boot.

During the whole incident, fisheries officers observed the incident and gave a similar account of events. The officers intervened and the [Wilson] believing them to be police at the time complied with what they told him to do. A male picked up the knife [Wilson] dropped. They told [Wilson] to sit down at a designated spot, which he did before getting up and running off into the bushes. A male-maintained observation on [Wilson] with his torch and followed him, watching the applicant crawl into the bushes where [Wilson] remained until police arrived and placed the applicant under arrest.

1. The Statement by Informant in the TB shows that one of the victims stated that, at the top of the stairs, Wilson had said 'Stop, you can't go up there. You have to pay me.' The victims walked past him and then Wilson said 'I've got a knife' and went to retrieve a knife from his bag. When he was waving the knife around, he thrusted the knife at the victims in a stabbing motion and saying 'I will kill you'.[7]
2. Wilson was also charged with carrying a controlled weapon, intentionally damaging property and possession of cannabis.
3. When he was interviewed, Wilson told police that the victims were poaching abalone, he waited on the path for them and they threatened to kill him. Wilson said they had shucking knives with them and threatened to stab him. He went back to the BBQ area and picked up his knife to defend himself. He admitted there was cannabis in his bag.[8]
4. Following a referral, Wilson was accepted into the Assessment and Referral Court (ARC)[9] in respect of the November 2020 offending. On 16 December 2021, Wilson was convicted of the charges (following his guilty plea) and was sentenced to 140 days imprisonment (time served). The order was formally completed on the same day.
5. When assessed by Cummins in March 2024, Wilson described the events and surrounding circumstances of the November 2020 offending as follows:[10]

It was during this time I was cooking some sausages at a public barbecue and these guys appeared out of the water and they were verbally hassling me and I felt threatened by them - I would've been under the influence of alcohol. I remember I reached the point where I was feeling really frightened and so I stabbed the boot of their car, hoping they'd leave me alone. Then the fisheries investigators just came out of the bushes - first of all they were wanting to arrest these guys who were apparently illegal abalone fishermen, but then they were told that I stabbed the car.[11] Well these guys ran off but they were eventually arrested and I also got arrested - these guys said I produced a knife and demanded money from them - that wasn't correct, but I did stab their car. I remember running off into the sand dunes where my tent was but then I got arrested by the police and the fisheries guys. I spent one night in the cells in . . . and the next morning I went to court - this was all during Covid and I had no fixed address and so I wasn't given bail. It was after that I contacted the Salvation Army in . . . and they helped me and put me in a halfway house . . . Then they got me into [a] Caravan Park, but after that I moved back to my campsite in the bush overlooking the water . . . - my campsite was near where my dog's ashes were scattered and my mum's ashes had been scattered at the same place. This was a terrible time of my life - I was rock bottom and the weather really tested me. I was a broken person at that time. Well one day I sort of spoke to the Lord and then something came over me.

15 September 2020 - contravene family violence intervention order and possession of cannabis

1. On 15 September 2020, there was an intervention order in place prohibiting Wilson from approaching his Sister or being at her property.
2. The PILO said:[12]

[Wilson] is the uncle to the victim, there is currently [a] family violence intervention order in place between the victim's mother and [Wilson]. The intervention order excludes [Wilson] from attending the victim's address for any reason.

On the 15/09/2020 [Wilson] attended the victim's address knocked at the door and entered without permission, [Wilson] entered the home by pushing past the victim at the door and verbally abused her while in the home.

Once the victim [asked Wilson] to leave, he then pulled down his pants and flashed his penis to the victim and left the premises. The victim stated that she was not in fear of [Wilson]. The victim believes that [Wilson] was possibly drug or alcohol affected. [Wilson] is possibly homeless at time of incident. No visible injuries.

1. Wilson's Niece (the alleged victim referred to above) gave evidence before me about the incident as follows:
   • At the relevant time, she saw Wilson as being at 'breaking point' because his mother had died and his dog (who was given to him by his mother) had been killed (run over);
   • She did not recall the September 2020 incident well;
   • At the time, Wilson was staying in a shed at the back of her mother's property;
   • He was drinking a lot at the time;
   • She was 'quite young' (although aged 18 years old) and 'being spiteful' towards him;
   • They got into a (verbal) fight and, from the toilet window, she was looking out at him while he was in the yard. He 'mooned' her - flashed his buttocks at her;
   • She did not think it was malicious but rather that it was 'childish';
   • She was not scared of Wilson: they were just arguing and 'nothing made me scared'. He had not done anything like that before; and
   • She called the police to attend because she knew they would remove him and because it was her mother's house. She did not call the police because she was scared or threatened by Wilson.
2. The Niece's evidence was that she called her mother after the incident, as she was not at the home. The Sister attended and she was told Wilson and her daughter had argued and that Wilson had 'mooned' the Niece. She said her daughter would have 'given [Wilson] as good as she got'.
3. The Niece's evidence was that she was not required to attend court in respect of the charges and did not do so. An intervention order to protect her was taken out at the police's suggestion and she did not attend court for that either. She did not seek an extension of the latter order and did not believe it had been breached.
4. Wilson strongly denied showing his penis to his Niece but admitted he 'mooned' her.
5. There was no dispute that Wilson was at his Sister's property in contravention of the intervention order and, further, that he was in possession of cannabis at that time.
6. Wilson pleaded guilty to the above offences and was sentenced on 20 August 2021 to a 12 month good behaviour bond with conviction.

February 2020 - various offences including unlawful assault, weapons offences and contravention of a Family Violence Safety Notice

1. A Statement by Informant (2020 Statement) in the TB[13] referred to events on 8 February 2020. It said, on that day, Wilson attended a social club, he was heavily intoxicated and 'left in an agitated state'. He became 'abusive to random people in the street'.
2. Wilson was located lying in the middle of the road 'extremely substance affected'. His dog had been hit and killed by a passing vehicle. Members of the public had attempted to remove Wilson from the road for everyone's safety when he became aggressive towards a driver of a vehicle, 'ripping the side mirror' from the car. Police attended and, during arrest, Wilson resisted.
3. In his evidence, Wilson confirmed he was extremely distressed by the death of his dog. Wilson did not otherwise dispute the events which led to the charges.

1. The 2020 Statement described events on 22 February 2020 when Wilson was at a supermarket 'in an intoxicated and aggressive condition'. Wilson was described as having been 'abusive towards customers' and he refused to leave when told to do so by the manager. Police were called and Wilson was located in the car park.
2. Wilson was 'unsteady on his feet, dishevelled and smelling strongly of intoxicating liquor'. He verbally abused police but was physically co-operative. He was taken to the local police station where he was placed in the cells. During the interview, Wilson stated:

He was angry at the death of his dog and had drunk a bottle of scotch whiskey.

1. Wilson was bailed with charges of being drunk in a public place, an offence which has since been de-criminalised.

1. The PILO said the following about events on 24 February 2020:[14]

Victim 1 is the owner and manager of a motel. Victim 2 is a resident at the motel and occupies . . . At approximately 4.25pm, victim 1 reported an assault to police detailing the following. Victim 1 and 2 were having a conversation outside victim 2's room at the motel when they noticed [Wilson] a former resident of the motel walking towards them down the driveway from the front of the motel.

An argument ensued between [Wilson] and victim 1. Victim 1 does not know why [Wilson] approached him . . . Victim 2 saw a black handle in the top of his shorts, believing it to be a knife. Victim 2 then put his arms around [Wilson] in a bear hug manner to prevent [Wilson] from accessing the knife . . . Victims 1 and 2 had to use appropriate force to protect themselves.

Police members patrolled area for [Wilson] attended the scene and obtained statements from victims 1 and 2. Member seized and photographed the knife. Police went back [to] station to complete reports.

1. When interviewed, Wilson denied the allegations of assault, claimed one of the victims attacked him and the other held him back while the first 'belted the shit out of me'. He admitted to carrying a controlled weapon without lawful excuse.[15] The Statement also said Wilson reported, in respect of the possess weapon charge:

It's in the car, I'm living in [an] alley way for god sake, its [name of town] and I'm living in [an] alley way.

1. The PILO continued as follows with 'victim 3' being Wilson's Sister:

While completing reports, police received another cad job involving [Wilson]. [Wilson] was reported to police as being at victim 3's address in contravention of a family violence safety order.

1. The 2020 Statement said that police were called to the Sister's address on 24 February 2020 and she reported Wilson had been at the address. She described him as 'behaving in an aggressive manner outside the house'.[16]
2. The same Statement said Wilson told police that he went there to get some 'cloths' (perhaps referring to clothes) and:

yeah I remember being arrested I was told not to go 50 meters (sic) within the place, I should have come and see you and got you to take me there.

1. The Sister's evidence was that the contravention of the family safety order involved Wilson coming to her home but going no further than the outside of the front door. She described him as intoxicated and loud. She believed she would have told him he needed to leave because he was intoxicated and she did not want to see his drunkenness and the 'kerfuffle'. She had no concerns about him harming her children but did not want them to see that behaviour either. She told him 'Enough is enough'. She said, while he knew there were boundaries, when intoxicated, he did not know what he was doing.
2. The Sister said he wanted to come and sleep at her house as he was homeless and had nowhere to go. She agreed that Wilson breached the notice soon after it was made and explained he was living in his car, parked behind the fence boundary of her house for several weeks. She did not mind him being there, provided he was not causing harm or being loud or obnoxious. The breach was because he was living in close proximity to her. His car ended up being towed away.
3. Speaking more generally about Wilson, the Sister said at the time he was a 'full blown alcoholic' and she ended up telling him he could not come to her home and she dismissed him from her life. She referred to taking those steps to try to help him realise he needed to get help and change.
4. As to their past relationship, the Sister described him as using words but not causing her concern about other harm and how, when he was intoxicated, she could stand up to him and make him understand he needed to stop.

Wilson's overall circumstances in February 2020

1. The 2020 Statement included the following under the heading 'Unacceptable risk':

[Wilson] is an unacceptable risk.

Police have been in contact with the [the Sister and the victims of the offences at the motel and] they advised that;

[Wilson] has a persistent drug and alcohol habit which he is unable or unwilling to manage, while in a drunken state [Wilson] is unpredictable and violent making him a large risk to those known to him and the general public as a whole.

[Wilson] is currently homeless, at the time of his arrest stated he was living out of his vehicle.

[Wilson] has interstate ties as seen by his interstate prior convictions making him a potential flight risk

At the time of his arrest [Wilson] was on 1 count of bail which held restrictive conditions. [Wilson] has disregarded to this bail and is continuing to commit offences.

[Wilson] has stated that he has planned to move to [NSW] this week.

[Wilson] has breached his Family Violence Intervention Order within 2 days of Issue.

1. Under the heading 'Conclusion', the 2020 Statement said:

[Wilson's] constant drug and alcohol abuse combined with a deteriorating mental state make him a danger not only to those around him but also to the general public.

[Wilson] admitted to a knowledge of the intervention order prohibiting him from [the Sister's home address] yet did not stop him from attending.

It's clear by [Wilson's] priors that no court or police mandated order will curb his offending and if he were to be released on bail police believe that he will continue to offend. As a result there are no conditions that can be imposed that will allay police concerns.

1. On 27 February 2020, after Wilson pleaded guilty to all charges, he was sentenced to a 12 month community corrections order (2020 CCO) with conviction for:
   • Intentionally destroy property (8 February 2020);
   • Two charges of unlawful assault (24 February 2020);
   • Carry controlled weapon without excuse (24 February 2020);
   • Contravening a Family Violence Safety Notice (24 February 2020); and
   • Possess prohibited weapon without exemption (24 February 2020).
2. As noted earlier, Wilson was referred to the ARC and, as I understood it, that Court supervised the 2020 CCO as well as matters related to the November 2020 offending. The 2020 CCO was adjourned at least twice and, on 16 December 2021, the 2020 CCO breach was found proven and was dismissed. The TB recorded the following about Wilson's engagement with the ARC process,[17] with the first entry made on 7 May 2021:

First month excellent engagement, sorted out issues himself to get bankcard. Paid for stranger on the bus who couldn't afford the bus fare, lost his wallet and his wallet got returned with everything including cash in it.

1. The next entry was made on 16 December 2021 and referred to when the matter returned to the ARC. It said that Wilson:

travelled well through his [ARC] episode. He has been alcohol free and is spending the next 12 months at a residential rehabilitation place. He has turned to Christianity and is heavily involved with the pastor and the church. He stated that since he found god he has not wanted to touch alcohol. [Wilson] also described goals to get housing, employment and then a dog. [Wilson] finds great support in animals.

[The Presiding Magistrate] was very proud of [Wilson's] achievements and presented him with an ARC certificate. The breach was found proven and the order confirmed given he has effectively completed all the conditions of his order through his [ARC] episode.

Sentence imposed was 154 days of PSD. No further action

[On 29 July 2007, at] approximately 110am, victim 1 was working as security officer at a licensed venue. Victim 1 has observed a fight near the front door and has attempted to remove both parties. As victim 1 was asking [Wilson] to leave, [Wilson] has swung a punch at victim 1 striking him in the face.

Victim 1 has managed to wrestle [Wilson] out of the licensed venue before both have fallen to the ground. While on the ground [Wilson] has kicked victim 1 in mouth causing him to chip his teeth, a second security officer (victim 2) has attempted to intervene, and [Wilson] has spat blood in his face making contact with his eye. [Wilson] was arrested by police at the scene a short time later and conveyed to a police station.

1. On 25 February 2008, Wilson was convicted of recklessly causing injury and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 24 months.
2. The November 2002 offending is Category B for the purposes of the WSA.

21 April 2002 - unlawful assault and related charges

The victim required police to attend to evict a drunk intruder [Wilson]. The intruder [Wilson] had smashed furniture, windows and doors. The applicant refused to leave when told to do so. The applicant resisted and assaulted police during arrest and search attempts.

1. Wilson was charged with unlawful assault, unlawful on premises, two charges of resist police, assault police, refuse to leave place after warning. On 13 June 2002, he was sentenced to three months imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order.

1. The PILO said the following about the events I mentioned above (see [14]), involving his mother and Sister:[20]

[On 29 March 2002, Wilson] has returned to his mother's address after drinking at a licensed venue. [Wilson] became abusive and assaulted his mother during an argument. [Wilson's] mother requested that he leave the address, he refused. Police attended to find [Wilson] intoxicated and abusive. Upon arrest a struggle ensued. [Wilson] assaulted police by kicking and biting one member who required medical attention as result of bite. [Wilson's Sister] and three young children were at the residence during incident.

1. Wilson was charged with recklessly causing injury and other offences which included assault police, refusing to leave, failing to answer bail and using indecent language.
2. Wilson's Criminal Record shows that, on 7 November 2002, he was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment for the recklessly cause injury and assault police offences. That sentence was wholly suspended.
3. Wilson's Sister gave the following evidence before me:
   • She lived a few doors down from her mother and came to the house bringing her three young children with her after her mother called stating Wilson was at the house;
   • She believed Wilson and her mother 'had words' about Wilson's drinking but was not present when that happened;
   • She was not aware of any physical assault on her mother, there were no marks on her mother and she was unaware of Wilson being charged with recklessly causing injury;
   • There may have been some shoving and words exchanged;
   • Wilson was removed because he was intoxicated; and
   • As to the children, they were not present during the events as she did not arrive until the incident had concluded. She has always 'blocked' the children from seeing or hearing any abusiveness or unacceptable behaviour from Wilson. She believed the children were put into the backyard while she was with her mother and Wilson so they could not see or hear.
4. While accepting that the Sister may not have observed or been aware of her mother being injured by Wilson, as indicated by the charge, a pre-requisite is that some injury was caused by Wilson's recklessness. I have proceeded on the basis that Wilson was charged due to his mother's reports to police. I understood Wilson pleaded guilty and so am satisfied that some injury was caused.
5. The March 2002 offending is Category B for the purposes of the WSA.

1. The PILO said that, on 1 November 1998, Wilson:[21]

was arrested at a bread shop in an intoxicated state. He has verbally abused the two staff (victim 1 and 2). He was instructed to leave at which time he assaulted the victims. [Wilson] bit victim 1's finger and refused to let go. Victim 1 struck [Wilson] repeatedly until his finger was released. Police were then called. Upon arrival of police, [Wilson] became violent lashing out with his feet and fists. [Wilson] was forcibly restrained and placed in a van. Victim 1 suffered severe lacerations to finger. Police suffered minor abrasions.

1. On 11 September 2000, Wilson received a $750 fine with conviction for the offence of intentionally causing injury.
2. The November 1998 offending is Category B for the purposes of the WSA.

1. As indicated above, Wilson was subject to Family Violence Intervention Orders made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) in 2020.
2. An interim Intervention Order was made on 29 October 2020 naming the Niece as the protected person.[22] A final Intervention Order was made on 26 November 2020 and was in force for a year.[23] The order again named the Niece as the protected person and in each the applicant is a third party, apparently a police officer.
3. As referred to by the Niece in her evidence, she did not apply for an Intervention Order or attend court following Wilson's offending on 15 February 2020 (see [44] above). She appeared unaware of the order and did not apply to have it extended.
4. I have proceeded on the basis that the final Intervention Order made on 26 November 2020 was related to that event. I noted the Niece's evidence that she did not fear Wilson at the time of the September 2020 events.
5. The third Intervention Order in the TB was made on 6 March 2020 and named the Sister as the protected person.[24] It was in place for 12 months. The Sister's evidence before me was she took it out for her daughter, while also saying her daughter was a mature teen/young adult who would 'give as good as she got'. In the circumstances, the evidence about the purpose of the Intervention Order was not clear including because the Niece said she had not been fearful of Wilson. The Sister's evidence was that there were no breaches of the last Intervention Order because he knew they were serious and stayed away.
6. I noted the comment in the 2020 Statement about Wilson having, apparently on 15 February 2020, breached an Intervention Order within two days of it being made (see [63] above). There was no earlier interim Intervention Order in the TB but I have assumed the police officer had in mind the breach related to the March 2020 Intervention Orders.

1. I record that the TB contained a final Intervention Order referring to someone with Wilson's name and another person neither he nor his Sister knew or had ever heard of.[25]
2. Two other final orders were made in 2018 and 2021 against someone with Wilson's name to protect a person who had the same surname.[26] Again, neither Wilson nor his Sister knew the protected person.
3. I have disregarded those three Intervention Orders as they do not appear to relate to Wilson.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions dated 14 May 2025 listed Wilson's other offending as follows:[27]

(i) 12 July 2018 - exceed prescribed concentration 3 hrs - breath - drive vehicle - Convicted and CCO for 12 months;

(ii) 10 March 2011 - drunk in a public place and possess cannabis - without conviction good behaviour bond for 12 months, $100 to court fund, seek and accept drug and alcohol counselling;

(iii) 25 October 2007 (Perth) - two charges of breach of police order - fined $500 on each charge;

(iv) 31 October 2005 (Perth) - disorderly behaviour in public, fail to give personal details, breach of bail - two $800 fines plus another for $500 were imposed;

(v) 5 May 2005 (Perth) - hinder police, on premise without lawful excuse, ride on carriageway during hours of darkness, possess prohibited drug - small fines;

(vi) 13 June 2002 - unlawful assault, unlawful on premises, resist police x 2, assault police, refuse to leave place after warning - 3 months imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order (see [68] above);

(vii) 30 August 2001 - possess ammunition without licence, two charges of fail to answer bail, possess cannabis - with conviction fined $550, use cannabis - without conviction good behaviour bond 12 months;

(viii) 14 August 2001 - drunk in public place - convicted and discharged

(ix) 2 August 2001 - assault police/person assisting police - with conviction fined $1000;

(x) 26 October 2000 - behave in offensive manner public place - with conviction fined $150;

(xi) 11 September 2000 - fail to answer bail - fined $150;

(xii) 11 May 1999 - four charges of assault police - with conviction fined $400, drunk and disorderly - convicted and discharged;

(xiii) 27 April 1999 - hinder police, act prejudicial good order/management gaol, fail to answer bail, two charges of assault police, drunk in a public place, place feet on furniture in carriage, use indecent language, possess regulated weapon - convicted and 12 month community based order;

(xiv) 27 August 1996 - eight charges of resist police - convicted and fined $250;

(xv) 14 May 1996 - minor possess liquor - convicted and fined $150; and

(xvi) 12 January 1996 - minor - criminal damage x twelve - without conviction good behaviour bond for 18 months.

1. There was no specific evidence from Wilson about these other offences except to state he was intoxicated due to alcohol (or cannabis) on each occasion. As noted, Wilson was a minor when he committed the offences at (xv) and (xvi).

1. I have referred to Wilson's evidence about his offending above in context. He otherwise gave no specific evidence about the remainder of the offending, maintaining that, for all of it, he was intoxicated and had little memory of the details. He confirmed he had pleaded guilty to all charges.

Submissions on the nature and gravity of the offending

1. Wilson's Written Submissions[28] noted the charges which had been withdrawn or struck out and submitted that attention must be given to distinguishing those from the other charges which are relevant to my review. It submitted the charges which were relevant were those laid on the dates in the table in [8] above.
2. Wilson's Written Submissions emphasised the fact that all the offending was committed while he was intoxicated. Reference was made to Wilson's circumstances, particularly in 2020, a time when he was homeless. Emphasis was placed on his denials in respect of the events with the Niece.
3. Wilson submitted that there was no demonstrable link between the offending and child-related work and again noted there had never been any offending against children of any kind. Wilson relied on the fact that none of the Intervention Orders related to children within his family.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions[29] referred first to the Category B offences, all of which involved violent offending. The Category B offences where those which arose from Wilson's conduct on 19 November 2020 (at the beach), 29 July 2007 (at the licensed venue), 29 March 2022 (at his mother's home) and 1 November 1998 (at the bread shop).
2. The Secretary described Wilson's 'array of violent offending' as covering 'stranger violence, violence against police/custody officers and family violence'.
3. The Secretary submitted that the violent offences were relevant to child-related work in that they show Wilson's 'inability to regulate his behaviour, and a propensity to engage in anti-social violent behaviour when intoxicated'. The Secretary noted that Wilson himself had stated that he could not recall much of the detail of his offending.
4. The Secretary contended that Wilson's:

lack of self-control when intoxicated therefore poses a risk to children in the vicinity. Whilst it is accepted [Wilson] was experiencing homelessness, and the offending appears to occur when under the influence of alcohol, this does not detract from the seriousness of the offending.

1. As to the Intervention Orders, the Secretary noted that the Tribunal has previously acknowledged that a history of family violence is relevant to child-related work.[30] It submitted in Wilson's case that his contravention of Intervention Orders was serious and relevant to child-related work. The contraventions were said to demonstrate a disregard for court orders in place to protect another person or persons from Wilson. It was also said to show a serious lack of control in acting despite the existence of court orders, which had been served and explained to him by police.

Findings on the nature and gravity of the offending

1. While I have noted the evidence Wilson gave about some of the circumstances surrounding the offending, I have not given that particular weight for two reasons. First, Wilson has said that he has limited memory of most of his offending and so I cannot accept his subsequent recall is accurate. Second, where he made guilty pleas to the facts, it is not appropriate for me to look behind those pleas except in one respect. In the case of the offending involving the Niece on 15 September 2020, I accept that Wilson 'flashed' his buttocks rather than his penis.
2. For the purposes of this factor (and others under the WSA), I find that the evidence shows that all of Wilson's offending occurred while he was intoxicated or affected by cannabis.
3. As there is nothing in Wilson's history concerning sexual harm to anyone (including the flashing incident), not to mention children, when considering the paramount consideration in this case, my focus is on the risk of Wilson causing physical harm to children.
4. Starting with the Category B offending, it is apparent that it involved serious violence and that violence was directed towards strangers and family and, in the case of that in March 2002, Wilson's own mother.
5. The offending shows that, when intoxicated, Wilson has lacked self-awareness and self-control, engaging in dangerous acts directed towards others. For his mother and strangers alike, the experience of being subjected to that violence must have been extremely frightening.
6. While other offending Wilson engaged in was not within Category B, the offending at the club and supermarket caused others to feel fear because of his aggressive conduct. The driving and other offending appears to have been closely connected to Wilson's abuse of alcohol.
7. Wilson's breaches of Intervention Orders in favour of his family members are concerning given their protective purpose. The correlation between intoxication and unlawful conduct is again revealed through those offences. The fact the Intervention Orders were in place at all showed that Wilson's family felt unsafe around him and did not want him near them, including their children. I agree with the Secretary's submission that breaches of such Orders indicates a disregard for the law and court orders.
8. As is apparent from the string of offences committed in 2020, that was a time when Wilson's behaviour was out of control. Given the role alcohol played in the offending, it is apparent his abuse of that substance was also uncontrolled. Aside from the criminal consequences, Wilson's inability to manage himself contributed to him being homeless and, during 2020, including at times in winter, living in a tent on a beach.
9. I accept the Secretary's submission that the Category B offending committed over the 22-year period 1998 to 2020 demonstrated a propensity to engage in anti-social violent behaviour when intoxicated. I agree that offending was serious given the harm and fear it engendered in its victims.
10. I also noted that between March 2012 and July 2018, Wilson committed no offences. He suggested that he was working then and, even though he was still drinking, he was able to get up and go to work. So, because he was, in his words, a 'functioning alcoholic' and working, he was able to keep out of trouble.
11. While none of the offending was against or directly involved children, the kind of behaviour Wilson engaged in, including that which involved a significant loss of self-control, could have caused harm or fear for children in the vicinity. In that way, there is a link between Wilson's past offending and the paramount consideration to protect children from physical harm.

The period of time since Wilson committed the offence - section 63(1)(b)

1. The last Category B offending was engaged in on 19 November 2020, now more than four and a half years ago.
2. As stated in the Secretary's Written Submissions,[31] the length of time since the last offending is a significant factor when determining risk to children. Also, what has occurred in that time is highly relevant. I discuss those matters below from [122] but, for now, note that Wilson has:
   • Been sober since around October 2021;
   • Strong family support;
   • Stable housing and employment;
   • Friends and mentors; and
   • A supportive community at the Church.

Whether a finding of guilt or conviction was recorded for the offence and the sentence imposed - sections 63(1)(c) and (d)

1. I have set out above the findings and sentencing outcomes for each offence.
2. I accept the Secretary's submission that any sentence involving incarceration, even if served via an Intensive Correction Order, is serious and points to the degree to which the conduct has offended against the law and society's norms.
3. I note that it appears Wilson was on remand for 140 days following his arrest in November 2020 due to homelessness and that was the time served for the purposes of the conviction and sentence.

Wilson's age and those of the victims when the offence was committed - section 63(1)(e)

1. The offending occurred when Wilson was between 21 and 44 years of age. The victim's ages ranged from 22 to 39 year's old.
2. As has been stated above, there has never been any offending against children.

Whether the conduct that constituted the offence has been decriminalised since the offences were committed - section 63(1)(f)

1. The offences of being drunk in a public place and drunk and disorderly have since been decriminalised in Victoria. None of the other offences have been decriminalised.

The applicant's behaviour since he committed the offence - section 63(1)(g)

1. I start with an overview of Wilson's past circumstances to add more context to his behaviour since November 2020.

1. The TB included a 19 May 1999 confidential report prepared by the Community Offenders Advice and Treatment Service (1999 COAT Report). At that time, Wilson was 22 years old.[32]
2. The purpose of the 1999 COAT Report was to assess Wilson's suitability for a referral to a Drug and Alcohol Service to address his alcohol and then daily cannabis use. The following comes from the 1999 COAT Report, supplemented by Cummins' Reports and other materials before me.
3. Relevant to Wilson's early life:
   • Wilson understood that his father had left the family before he was born. He was also told that his father died before he was born. He has never had any contact with his father, knows nothing about him and has never seen a picture of him. He had two older brothers from the relationship between his mother and father;[33]
   • He has four other siblings, including the Sister. Those siblings came from his mother's subsequent de facto relationship which later ended;
   • His mother subsequently commenced a new relationship with a man Wilson described as 'good but hard'. Wilson told Cummins that he was subjected to verbal and physical abuse from his 'stepfather';
   • Wilson stated his mother used cannabis and his stepfather was dependent on alcohol and cannabis;
   • As his mother and stepfather moved around looking for work, he attended numerous (at times stated to be 30) primary schools. Halfway through year 10, when he was 16, Wilson left school and started a butcher's apprenticeship which he completed four years later;
   • Wilson did not enjoy school studies and often got into fights. He was required to do an anger management course which, he told the author of the 1999 COAT's Report, had been 'a great tool in keeping him from being aggressive more often'. Having said all of that, he was said to have been popular at school and had many friends; and
   • Wilson stated that he first used cannabis when he was around 14 years old and started drinking alcohol when aged around 16 in the family context.[34]
4. As noted earlier, throughout his life, Wilson has worked as a butcher, including at times when he was abusing alcohol. In the context of his evidence about being a 'functioning alcoholic', Wilson said it was usual for the butchers to go for a drink after work and that he joined them, drinking until he was drunk (including when he was underage).
5. In around 2018-2019, while working as a butcher, Wilson cut a tendon in his right hand. He has had around four operations on the hand since then. He received a payout from WorkCover. Despite the injury, Wilson was able to continue to work as a butcher and was doing so as at the time of the hearing.
6. While he has had a number of relationships, Wilson stated they had all ended due to his abuse of alcohol. He has no children.

1. The first Category B offending occurred in 1998 and Wilson continued to engage in like offending until November 2020.
2. There has been no further offending of any kind over the last more than four and a half years.

1. I summarise the past steps Wilson has taken to manage his alcohol and substance use and then refer to his more recent efforts.

Wilson's attempts to address his alcohol use prior to October 2021

1. The materials in the TB gave some insight into Wilson's efforts to address his alcohol and substance use prior to around 2021. They indicate as follows:
   • In October 1999, Wilson completed sessions with an Alcohol and Drug (AOD) Counsellor in the La Trobe Valley. Despite that, over the following three years, his alcohol use escalated even when he was in full time employment;[35]
   • As at early 2008, Corrections records stated that Wilson had not been on an order long enough for clinical services programs to address his alcohol use. The notes indicated the plan was for Wilson to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), have drug and alcohol treatment and have neurological testing. The TB records indicate the drug and alcohol counselling commenced in around March 2008 and it was apparently completed satisfactorily.[36] In his evidence, Wilson said that he started drinking again after having a beer with a neighbour following surfing together. He said it only took one drink to resume excess drinking. The lesson he has taken from that is that he can never touch a drop of alcohol and he said he never will;
   • Apparently in connection with drink driving or related offences in 2018, Wilson was ordered to undertake AOD treatment and he did so, including a seven day hospital based detox program.[37] While in February and March 2019 he had attended Corrections supervision sessions hours late and 'heavily inebriated',[38] by July 2019 he was described as having 'engaged compliantly, respectfully and positively' and acknowledged the benefits of the treatment and rehabilitation conditions;
   • After being discharged from his supervision and treatment order in July 2019, Wilson was placed in accommodation at the motel which I understand was the same motel referred to in the context of his offending on 24 February 2020 (see [54] above).[39] As is apparent, by that time in 2020, Wilson had resumed abusing alcohol and was again offending; and
   • In the context of the 2020 CCO, in May 2020, Wilson attended a 10-day detox program at a hospital. He then joined a live-in program at REMAR Australia (discussed further below) staying there for seven or eight days. He apparently left due to a dispute about fees and/or smoking (which was banned).[40] In his evidence, Wilson said the first time he was at REMAR he was 'on the fence' and did not want to learn about God.
2. When assessed by Cummins in March 2024, Wilson referred to his experience attending AA in around 2008. He told Cummins that he became 'upset' because he thought 'they were trying to sneak religion into my life through talking about a higher power'. Wilson then stated that he now 'fully' believed in a higher power.[41]
3. In his evidence before me, Wilson explained that, for at least part of the time he was subject to the 2020 CCO, he was living in the tent on the beach. To meet the CCO requirements, he got two buses to and from the large regional town he was required to attend. That evidence is confirmed by a reference from an ARC case manager (referred to below at [265]).
4. The TB contained Corrections materials which confirmed that, over the life of the 2020 CCO, Wilson was transient, moving from emergency accommodation to 'sleeping rough'. The records stated that, at times and despite the Intervention Order then in place, Wilson sometimes stayed at the Sister's home. At times he had no phone and so contact could not be made with him.[42]

Wilson's recovery from Alcohol Use Disorder from October 2021

1. While incarcerated after the November 2020 offending, Wilson completed the following courses:[43]
   • 'Family, Friends and Community' on 18 February 2021;
   • 'Take Stock B' on 5 February 2021;
   • 'Adapt' on 2 February 2021; and
   • 'Take Stock A' on 3 February 2021.
2. In around October 2021, Wilson attended a seven (or 10) day hospital-based detox. His evidence was that he was at his tent on the beach when he got a call saying a place was available (due to a cancellation). He felt God had made that happen. He went to detox and had a hot shower and slept in a warm bed. He had an AOD social worker who assisted him at that time.
3. After he was discharged from hospital, Wilson went again to REMAR from 14 October 2021 (Wilson's birthday) to 24 February 2022.
4. Wilson told Cummins that, while he had been given naltrexone (to moderate cravings) while in detox in hospital, REMAR did not allow him to use that medication when undertaking its program.[44] He stated that he was taking an antidepressant while at REMAR but, when he left, he found he no longer needed the medication.
5. Wilson's evidence was that he fully participated in the REMAR program the second time, he prayed every day and said God had answered 'every prayer' and more.
6. Wilson's evidence about that time was that he had ceased drinking alcohol and, after leaving REMAR, he started attending the Church. He met the Pastor there and described himself as being 'surrounded by great people'.
7. As summarised earlier, after the November 2020 offending, Wilson was referred to ARC and the 2020 CCO was recorded as completed on 16 December 2021.
8. In his evidence, Wilson described being taken to ARC that day. His worker collected him from REMAR and took him to Court. He said it was the first time he had been praised. He said he was told he had done good work and that not many people completed the program.[45]
9. Wilson gave evidence he prays every day to stay sober and also prays for his family daily.
10. He described how, after he had been sober for about six months, he felt comfortable being with others who were drinking alcohol and him just having a lemon squash. That was also reported to Cummins[46] and confirmed by others in their evidence.

The program at REMAR and Wilson's engagement there

1. The Executive Director of REMAR, Luis Brito, wrote a letter[47] and gave evidence about Wilson's involvement with the organisation.
2. The letter explained that REMAR is:

a Christian-based rehabilitation centre that provides substance abusers with recovery opportunities that are focused on healing their physical, emotional and spiritual needs.

1. In his oral evidence, Brito further described his involvement with and the nature of the service as follows:
   • REMAR operates programs in 78 countries around the world;
   • In around 1985, Brito had his own issues with drug use and attended REMAR in Portugal. He became a Christian during his time at REMAR and later became a 'pastor';
   • Having decided to become involved working with REMAR, he went to the US for about 11 years and then, in around 2003, he decided to come to Australia, having applied for the role of Director;
   • He had worked with hundreds or 'maybe thousands' of people at REMAR and considered that those who were Christians had a greater chance of not relapsing. He put that down to those people having a new life, values and habits and being in the company of new people. He stated that it was not difficult to 'get clean' but it was difficult to 'stay clean'. He considered that Christianity helped a lot to prevent people from relapsing. He confirmed that it was a faith-based program which assists people to know what is right and wrong and to learn how to make good choices;
   • Brito spoke of triggers and challenges some face including returning to spend time with others who they misused substances with, too much free time and a lack of employment. He regarded those as a 'recipe for disaster' and as explaining why people needed to create a new environment for themselves;
   • Brito had counselling experience which came from his involvement in REMAR and does not have any outside qualifications in AOD treatment. He stated that he did not need those to support people with alcohol and drug issues because he had 'been there' and had recovered;
   • The usual REMAR program runs for 12 months and those who stay for that length of time have a greater chance of not relapsing. The percentage of those who stay was estimated to be about 50%. The first three months of the program are used to get to know the person and even then, the understanding gained may be limited;
   • A psychologist attends REMAR every two weeks but there are no other qualified therapists (including in respect of AOD) on staff. Other counsellors come from other churches and work on a voluntary basis as a group to support participants. Those counsellors obtained their experience in church settings;
   • REMAR does not make records or notes recording participants' involvement in the program. Brito explained that the participants and leaders/staff are all living together. I understood from that, that note taking would be intrusive or regarded as inappropriate. Accordingly, there were no records about what Wilson did at REMAR or about his progress there;
   • When asked to compare the REMAR program to AA, Brito explained that they work more on a case by case basis, trying to understand the particular person, their issues and then work out how to deal with those; and
   • Brito explained that, when participants left REMAR, whether at the end of the 12 months or earlier, it was up to them whether they stayed in touch. He stated that REMAR was always open to people coming back, including after relapses. He explained that time is required to 'heal' and retrain the brain and that can take a lot of time.
2. Brito gave evidence about his knowledge of Wilson. Although Brito had an involvement with all those at REMAR due to his role as Director and pastor (and because he was there four to five days a week), he had limited direct knowledge of Wilson's time at REMAR. It appeared that was in part because he could not recall the detail (and there were no notes to consult) and partly because a number of people at REMAR worked with participants. Brito did not know what Wilson's triggers for use of alcohol were.
3. Brito was aware that Wilson attended REMAR to participate in a once-a-month group but did not know the details as he did not always attend those meetings. He stated that 'everyone tells me he's doing well'. He said he had not had much of a relationship with Wilson over the past three years but noted that Wilson had called him a few times to talk. He was aware that Wilson had joined another church and was actively involved there.
4. Wilson's evidence was that he started attending a monthly meeting and dinner at REMAR with a friend and had been continuing for about six months. From time to time, he is able to take a roast to share with others.
5. He remarked that the time he was living at REMAR was the only time in his life he had put on weight.
6. In his evidence he referred to talking with others at the monthly meetings and encouraging them not to feel bad if it took several times to become sober.

1. The March 2024 First Cummins' Report said:[48]

As a result of interviewing [Wilson] I completed the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) concerning his drinking history. He obtained a score of 45/53 which confirms that over the period of time he offended he was diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder which was severe in type (DSM-5 Code 303.90). His dependency on alcohol is now technically in sustained remission. Through assessing his former dependency on alcohol via the MAST, I ascertained his previous partners had complained about his drinking, he had a history of being unable to stop drinking after consuming 1-2 drinks, he had a history of feeling bad about his drinking, he acknowledged friends and relatives would have regarded him as being an alcoholic, he acknowledged having a history of being unable to stop drinking when he wanted to, he has attended AA meetings, he has become involved in fights when under the influence of alcohol, drinking created problems between himself and past intimate partners, he has lost friends because of his dependency on alcohol, he got into trouble at work because of alcohol, he had neglected his obligations for two or more days in a row because of his alcohol dependency, he would often drink alcohol prior to midday, he has had the experience of hearing voices and engaging in delusional thinking when heavily intoxicated on alcohol, he has sought assistance in relation to his alcohol dependency and has been in hospital because of his alcohol dependency, he has been arrested for drunk and disorderly behaviour and he has been arrested and charged for drink driving.

. . .

As far as I could ascertain there was a genuine and definite nexus between his offending history and his dependency on alcohol and/or cannabis. I assessed the most relevant risk factor for him reoffending is a possible return to alcohol dependency. In this regard he has now been sober in terms of alcohol and illicit drugs for approximately 2½ years - which clinically confirms he is in sustained remission.

1. As to Wilson's rehabilitation, Cummins stated:[49]

In my opinion [Wilson's] rehabilitation is already very significantly advanced. In this regard I confirm that prior to working in private practice I worked as a senior psychologist for approximately 3½ years at Gresswell Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre at Mont Park Hospital and as a result I have assessed and treated many persons who at various times in their lives have been dependent on alcohol and/or other substances and have then achieved permanent sobriety. As is well documented in the clinical literature and would now be common knowledge to the courts and tribunals, different people achieve the goal of sobriety via various means and a percentage of substance dependent people achieve sobriety through becoming religious. In [Wilson's] situation, he has achieved sobriety through participating in detoxification and rehabilitation programs and through learning about the personal benefits of working whilst being sober and pursuing his religious beliefs.

1. The Second Cummins' Report confirmed his experience with people who have been dependent on alcohol and how they have achieved sobriety, describing that further as follows:

I emphasise that as a result of having previously worked at a government-related alcohol and drug treatment hospital, the Gresswell Centre . . . and having now worked in private practice for approximately 38 years and having kept up to date with research, the path by which people cease using alcohol and other drugs and abusing prescription medication and become rehabilitated in terms of criminal offending including violent offending is rarely a linear process and in my opinion is ultimately a process which occurs and is maintained when a person identifies a 'higher power' in their life. What constitutes a 'higher power' for one person may be different for another person and what constitutes a 'higher power' in one person may change with time. In my opinion [Wilson] has found a 'higher power' through a combination of factors including being sober with respect to drugs and alcohol and through engaging in voluntary work, [the Employer's business][50] . . . and his involvement with the [Church] and through working [as a butcher]. At interview he spoke in passionate terms regarding his involvement with the [Church and the Employer's business] and his engagement with full time employment and his association with [the Employer] and the fact he remains linked in with [REMAR].

I confirm that throughout my professional life I have assessed and treated many patients who have ultimately made the decision to remain sober with respect to alcohol and/or illicit drugs and/or prescription medication and with the assistance of a 'higher power' they have maintained their sobriety on an indefinite basis. In my opinion, it is a commonly quoted myth in the community that a person who has been dependent on alcohol, illicit drugs and/or prescription medication can never become permanently sober. In my opinion [Wilson] has now found a path via which he has been able to become sober and remain sober. On the basis of his comments, in my opinion he remains committed to being abstinent in terms of alcohol and other illicit substances on an indefinite basis for the remainder of his life.

. . .

I confirm that after completing my university training I then worked as a senior psychologist at the Greswell Centre for approximately three years (as summarised in my brief CV) and in that capacity I was solely involved in the assessment and treatment of patients who were alcohol and other drug dependent. It was through working at the Greswell Centre that I commenced my training as a forensic psychologist. Since leaving the Greswell Centre I have been working both as a clinical psychologist and a forensic psychologist. I now conduct assessments for persons throughout Australia and I provide evidence in courts and tribunals throughout Australia. I am now a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society and I am in good standing with [the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency].

Wilson's mental health history and Cummins' opinion

1. Corrections material in the TB indicated that in around 2018, Wilson was repeatedly reminded about obtaining a Mental Health Care Plan but it appeared at that time no such Plan was obtained.[51]
2. The 2020 CCO required Wilson to undergo treatment and rehabilitation including 'Mental health assessment and treatment as required'.[52] The evidence about what was directed was limited.
3. The Corrections materials referred at times to Wilson having court ordered counselling for certain conditions. In his evidence, Wilson referred to attending some counselling in 2020 after his dog died and as required by his 2020 CCO.[53]
4. The TB contained a Corrections record which referred to some planned counselling in around August 2020.[54] It was not clear if that was the counselling referred to above or whether it was separate. The relevant file note shows Wilson was then planning to attend REMAR and was intending to see a general practitioner about medication to assist him to cease use of alcohol.
5. As best I can understand it, while Wilson had some counselling in around 2020, there was no formal sustained engagement with a psychologist for mental health conditions.
6. As summarised earlier, the 2020 CCO was completed on 16 December 2021 with positive reports as to his engagement and progress (see from [66] above) and so it appears that the mental health condition was complied with satisfactorily.
7. I record that there were references in some of the materials to Wilson having or potentially having a mild Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In his evidence, Wilson said that it came up when he was at ARC but he never had any treatment or similar and he did not know much about the condition. It appeared Wilson was never comprehensively assessed or diagnosed for that condition despite the suggestion that Wilson was to be referred for an ASD assessment. In light of the lack of materials indicating ASD has ever in fact been an issue for Wilson and having regard to Cummins' assessment, I have given no weight to the references to ASD.[55]
8. In his First Report, Cummins recorded that Wilson told him that he was treated with an anti-depressant while he was at REMAR but had ceased taking it once he left. Wilson also disclosed having past anxiety. As to other mental health issues, Cummins said:[56]

[Wilson] has never been hospitalised in a psychiatric hospital/ward. When his dog was hit and killed by a motor vehicle he engaged in acute suicidal ideation and he laid on the road - as a result of which he spent time in hospital, having been taken to hospital by police. He stated - 'Well I got told I was in some sort of a coma for five days. I was probably out of it because of the alcohol and the grief'.

. . .

[In the context of Wilson completing three self-report questionnaires] On the TSl-2 (Trauma Symptom lnventory-2) there was a minor elevation on the scale measuring a history of dissociated thinking - which in my opinion was reflective of the fact that whilst intoxicated on alcohol and cannabis he sometimes experienced confusing and delusional thoughts. Significantly, at interview he spontaneously spoke about the way he now appraises himself very differently and in a much more positive manner than was the case prior to him becoming sober.

On the BDI-II (Beck Depression Inventory-II) he was assessed as minimally depressed.

On the DASS (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales) his score for symptoms of depression fell within the normal range. His score for symptoms of stress fell in the moderate range. His score for symptoms of anxiety fell in the extremely severe range - which in my opinion reflected his comments about feeling anxious regarding the outcome of the forthcoming VCAT hearing.

. . .

He maintained good eye contact. He was appropriately oriented in time, place and person. In my opinion he formed a very good rapport in the interview situation. Surprisingly, given his history of dependency on alcohol and cannabis, he did not present as having a substance related acquired brain injury (ABI) or an ABI induced by any other means such as a head trauma. He presented as being of average (most probably low average) intelligence. He did not present as having an obvious [ASD].

He did not report any history indicating he had ever been diagnosed with ADHD, a Bipolar Mood Disorder, or a Manic Disorder. He has never been diagnosed with any psychotic disorder including schizophrenia. He has never been medicated for any psychotic symptoms. He stated following the death of his dog - specifically him lying on the road whilst highly intoxicated on alcohol and in a state of acute grief he may have experienced delusional symptoms - which in my opinion were most probably stress induced symptoms.

In spite of his criminal record, at interview he did not present as having an Antisocial Personality Disorder. I accept that at face value his history of offending would have been consistent with him having an Antisocial Personality Disorder, although in my opinion a more appropriate explanation for his offending was his dependency on alcohol and cannabis. He did not present as having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a Paranoid Personality Disorder, or a Borderline Personality Disorder.

. . .

In my opinion [Wilson] is currently not diagnosed with any mental health disorder in accordance with DSM-5.

1. Confusingly, although Cummins had stated in his First Report that he did not believe Wilson had suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and referred instead to a past Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), in the Second Cummins' Report he said the following and then drew some final conclusions:[57]

Further, I emphasise it is possible for someone to mature out of having an [APD], which I believe [Wilson] previously suffered from. In my opinion [Wilson] has matured out of having an [APD]. Further, in my opinion there was historically a very significant nexus between his offending and his dependency on alcohol and other substances and him having an [APD].

. . .

As was the case when I previously assessed him, he did not provide a history indicative of him ever had a Bipolar Mood Disorder, ADHD, an [ASD] or a Manic Disorder. He did not speak in an antisocial or anti-authoritarian manner. I did not diagnose him as having an [APD], a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a Paranoid Personality Disorder, or a [BPD].

1. As Cummins' was not called to attend the hearing, the discrepancy between his statements regarding an APD and/or a BPD was not resolved. That has not had any significant impact on the weight I gave to the relevant parts of Cummins' opinion given my focus was on the totality of the opinion regarding Wilson's mental health as at the time of the hearing and how that informs the assessment of the risk of future harm to children.
2. As to Wilson's understanding of the criminal process and intellectual functioning, the Second Cummins' Report said the following after reference to the November 2020 offending:[58]

He then became noticeably anxious and upset when I stated that I wanted him to provide details of his other offending. He eventually stated he was unable to provide those details because he got jumbled up with dates and times and because his memory was so poor and also because sometimes when he was at court or giving instructions to a solicitor he was under the influence of alcohol and/or other substances and would simply agree when he was advised to plead guilty to charges and even under circumstances where he was of the belief he had not committed particular offences and/or where he had no recollection of committing particular offences.

In my opinion he appeared to have a very simplistic understanding of the process of plea bargaining and of resolving charges into a guilty plea. In my opinion, it was very clear that when he was talking about these matters his understanding of the nuances of the criminal law was limited and quite unsophisticated.

I formed the opinion (as referred to in paragraph 55 of my report dated 28/3/2024) that [Wilson] did not present as having any obvious [ABI]. Nonetheless, as a result of interviewing him on 5/5/2025 I formed the opinion he was most probably functioning intellectually at the top end of the Below Average range, as opposed to at the lower end of the Average range. In my opinion these issues will be relevant if [Wilson] was required to give evidence and be cross examined at a VCAT hearing because I formed the view he is likely to become readily confused with questioning, particularly if he was asked questions which effectively require him to provide historical detail about something which he obviously feels anxious, agitated, depressed and embarrassed about.

1. The Secretary's counsel referred to the above information about Wilson's intellectual functioning as 'new information' which it was not able to test via cross-examination of Cummins. While that is factually correct, I did not read the above as raising issues related to risk or the likelihood Wilson would offend again and present a risk of harm to children. It seemed to me to be connected with the manner in which Wilson responded to Cummins' questions and suggestions about how Wilson might manage the hearing process.
2. I record that, while there were matters Wilson did not recall and, at times, he did not answer the questions directly when giving his evidence, there was no sign of him being more confused or unsettled than any other witness. I have given no weight to the particular comments Cummins made in respect of the likelihood Wilson presents a risk of future harm to children.
3. In an extract set out above, Cummins recorded that Wilson reported that he had had 'the experience of hearing voices and engaging in delusional thinking when heavily intoxicated on alcohol'. The Secretary expressed concern about the fact that questions clarifying the meaning and significance of that information were not able to be asked of Cummins. I was satisfied that the comments concerning only alcohol related circumstances, given Cummins' conclusion that Wilson does not suffer from a mental health condition.

1. The First Cummins' Report explained that Wilson's risk for committing a further violent offence was assessed through the interview with him on 18 March 2024, 'reviewing all of the relevant documentation and relying upon the current best practice qualitative assessment tool, namely the HCR-20, which directs my attention to 20 risk factors of relevance to violence risk'.
2. The Report then said:[59]

On the HCR-20 the historical risk factors which were relevant for him were violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationships, employment, substance use (alcohol and cannabis), major mental disorder (Alcohol Use Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder) . . . traumatic experience (at interview he acknowledged that whilst dependent on cannabis and alcohol he would frequently get himself into situations where he was harassed and physically assaulted), violent attitudes (as evidenced by his criminal record), treatment or supervision response (until relatively recently he had not sought any treatment or supervision in relation to his dependency on alcohol and cannabis and his associated mental health problems).

In terms of the clinical risk factors, in my opinion he has not had recent problems with insight. There is currently no evidence of violent attacks or intent. He currently does not present as having a major mental disorder. He is no longer diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder, a Cannabis Use Disorder, or a [BPD]. In my opinion his current mental health is no longer one of instability. In my opinion the materials summarised in this report confirmed he has not only participated in treatment and supervision, but has significantly benefited from treatment and supervision over what is now clinically an extended time.

In terms of the risk management factors which addresses future problems, he reported he is currently able to have contact with [REMAR] on a sporadic, as needs basis. He has a stable living situation. He has the personal support of his [Sister] and of members of the [Church and of the Employer and friends in the area] who are now aware of the fact he has turned his life around. At interview he confirmed that his current treatment goal is that of indefinite sobriety in relation to cannabis and alcohol. He stated he has now developed and instituted risk management strategies in relation to alcohol and cannabis including feeling comfortable attending a hotel and drinking lemon squash as opposed to drinking alcohol and knowing that if he has the thought of drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis, he now has close friends who are sober (many of who have not had problems with alcohol or other drugs) who he can use as confidants and mentors. He also reported he was currently not experiencing issues with stress or coping. Simultaneously, he stated he was now very committed to working with [the Employer] and that he would feel very upset if he was not granted a [WWC Clearance], as he has formed the opinion that working with [the Employer] has not only facilitated his ongoing rehabilitation, but will reinforce his treatment aspirations which include full time employment.

1. Cummins referred to the nexus between Wilson's offending history and dependency on alcohol and cannabis and noted the period of sobriety (see [164] above). He then said:[60]

I assessed his current risk for committing a further offence of violence as Low (where the risk category ratings are Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High and High). I express this opinion whilst appreciating he has never been directed to or of his own volition participated in a Men's Behaviour Change Program or an anger management program. Nonetheless, at interview he indicated that if he were now directed to participate in such a program he would do so - because he is so motivated to develop even more insight into his history of offending and his history of aberrant psychological functioning associated with his history of substance dependency. However, at interview he stated he did not believe that he needed to participate in a Men's Behaviour Change Program or an anger management program because he now regarded himself as being rehabilitated in terms of risk for violent offending.

I noted he had no history of sexual offending. In expressing this opinion, I was aware that on 20/8/2021 . . . he faced the charge of unlawful assault and direct sexual activity - intend ex fear/distress [relating to his exchange with the Niece on 15 September 2020], with those matters being struck out/withdrawn. It was therefore not necessary or appropriate to conduct a sexual risk assessment . . .

1. The Second Cummins' Report said:[61]

I confirm I remain of the opinion the primary risk factor for [Wilson] committing further violent offending and/or any kind of offending would be a return to alcohol dependency and/or illicit substance use. Nonetheless I am aware he has now been sober with respect to alcohol and illicit drugs for approximately 3½ years.

. . .

it is my opinion that [Wilson's] rehabilitation (both in terms of a dependency on alcohol and cannabis and in relation to violent offending) is well established and there is no need for him to be referred to any other professional to finalise my opinion concerning his current level of risk for reoffending.

Wilson's post 2022 employment and living arrangements

1. After leaving REMAR in February 2022, Wilson moved to his current hometown and joined the Church. He obtained work with the Employer in his outdoor activities business. Wilson had always surfed and has worked with the Employer teaching others to surf. Because he did not have a WWC Clearance, Wilson could not teach school groups. The Employer's evidence was that, for all lessons, there was a primary teacher and then at least one assistant, the latter being a role Wilson had filled.
2. The Employer's evidence was that Wilson was well suited to the work and could work towards obtaining qualifications to develop his options.
3. Given the outdoor nature of the business, it is seasonal in nature. The Employer also works in a remote Aboriginal community from time to time. He stated that, because of his life experience and his way of interacting with others, Wilson would be an asset in that work if he had a WWC Clearance. The Employer referred to members of the community having experienced homelessness and having alcohol issues as well as absent fathers. He thought Wilson could offer hope and be a 'light in a dark place'.
4. The Employer is away for around six months at the remote community. Wilson looks after the house, property and the dog. He assists in supporting the Employer's parents while he is away.
5. As stated earlier, Wilson has been living on the Employer's property since around 2022 to 2023. In that context, he interacts with the Employer's wife and children and his parents. In addition, for part of the year, through an informal arrangement with a family in the remote community a teenage girl has lived with the Employer's family for periods of time.
6. Wilson gave evidence that he spends time with the children surfing and fishing. He goes camping with the family. They all attend Church together every Sunday.
7. The Employer had no concerns about how Wilson interacted with his children, his parents and the teenage girl. The Employer referred to Wilson as a part of the family, a brother for himself and an uncle for his children. There is no end date on the living arrangement.
8. As to his employment, Wilson referred to the fact he had been out of work for five years and how his settled living arrangement had helped for him to re-start work.

1. Wilson referred to his Sister as providing him with 'great support'. He said she could see the change in him.
2. The Sister's evidence was that she sees Wilson nearly every day. He sometimes stays overnight on weekends and goes there for Sunday dinner. There are no Intervention Orders in place and the relationship is supportive and positive.
3. The Niece's evidence was that, as at the time of the hearing, she saw Wilson 'quite often'. She described him as having strong religious beliefs, being supportive, trying to help and as a kind person. She said their interactions were 'pretty good', he gave advice and shared his belief in God. He talks about what he has been through and how he changed himself. She said he referred to being 'here to help' and not judging.
4. She was asked if she had any concerns about her young siblings being alone with Wilson. The Niece said he comes over to the house and she has never seen anything concerning. She was asked whether she had any concerns about Wilson having contact with her three year old nephew and she said 'no, no way'. She was asked about any concerns if he was around children and she said 'no'. In cross-examination, the Niece was asked if she would be concerned about children if Wilson started drinking again. She did not believe he would start drinking again because he was a changed person with morals and beliefs that were so different.
5. The evidence was that Wilson is in regular contact with the Sister's children and her grandchild as they are often home when he comes over. The Sister has no concerns about how Wilson interacts with them all. She stated he has conversations with them, takes them on bike rides and she is comfortable leaving the children (aged between mid-teens to young adults) and her grandchild (aged three) alone with him - she said she had 'no issues' with that.
6. That evidence is to be understood in the context of the past Intervention Orders and the Sister's 14-year history of work as an early childhood educator. The Sister has responsibility for child protection at her workplace and is well aware of concerns that can arise due to an individual's police record. In addition to her professional training and work, the Sister has raised eight children, including three from her wider family.
7. The Sister said, in her view, Wilson was not a risk to a child and would not harm a child. During her evidence, the Sister demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of Wilson's past offending and alcohol abuse and she had been shown documents relating to his past criminal history.
8. In her evidence, the Sister described Wilson as a 'completely different person' now that he is sober and she said there was no need for her to 'have words' with him. The Sister gave evidence that, when Wilson was drinking, he was selfish, self-centred and in his own little bubble. Since he had been in rehabilitation, he was 'doing so much better'. She referred to his 'passion for others'. She said he was not proud of his past when he had no control over himself. Then, he sought help and was now 'out the other side'.
9. As referred to below, at the hearing there was evidence about Wilson's loud voice.
10. When the Sister was asked about that, she agreed that he could be loud and she would tell him he was 'so loud'. She was asked if that led to any concerns with children. She said that it was not loud 'scary', just loud. She referred to him being one of five children and needing to be loud in a busy family.
11. Wilson has tried to re-connect with his other siblings to try to help them.

1. As indicated above, Wilson is deeply committed to the Church. He attends each Sunday and is involved in services and other activities during the week. Those include a mid-week evening activity where group members share a meal and talk.
2. During his evidence-in-chief, Wilson described his religious beliefs and involvement with the Church as very important to him. He said they provided guidelines to live a good life and make 'all the right choices'. He described himself as still learning and described his passion for bible study and further learning.
3. The Employer described Wilson as the first to put his hand up at the Church.
4. Inspired by a television show about a man who goes to Kings Cross in Sydney to give 'jocks and socks' to the homeless, Wilson started going to a park in Dandenong, taking sausages to cook and offer to anyone around. Even if only a couple of people went, he felt he had contributed something and that his trip, which took the better part of half a day, was of value.

The application for a WWC Clearance and plans for the future

1. As I understood it, Wilson intends to continue working as a butcher in the short term.
2. Despite the seasonal nature of the work with the Employer, that was still something he wanted to pursue when work was available. He was asked about what training was required if he wanted to become a teacher or leader in that business. Wilson said he needed a WWC Clearance and then would need to undertake pre-requisites such as a life saving bronze medallion and training with the Employer. The Employer gave evidence about specific awards Wilson would need to obtain from Surf Life Saving Australia as well as first aid level 2 qualifications.
3. Wilson's evidence was that he wanted to obtain a WWC Clearance so he could do more within the Church as well as working more with the Employer. He referred to programs run by the Church that he cannot be involved in, including those directed at children and young people. He wants to be involved in the latter because he believes he has a story to tell about 'silly things' you do in life.
4. Wilson also explained he cannot volunteer for many programs without a WWC Clearance, including a program the Church was running to shelter homeless people over winter. He referred to the regular mid-week evening group he attends: without a WWC Clearance, he cannot lead that group or take on other responsibilities.
5. Wilson expressed an interest in going to bible college and perhaps in future leading Sunday school lessons. He referred to his own experience of those lessons and being taught what was right and wrong. He wanted to have the opportunity to share what he had learned and what the Church and bible had done for him: namely, changing his life.
6. When asked about what was required for bible college, Wilson was not certain. As I understood it, Wilson was awaiting the outcome of this application before making more enquiries or taking steps to take up further training of that kind.

1. I recorded earlier the fact that Wilson pleaded guilty to all charges. That of itself, combined with his admission that he could not recall much of his offending, and so had a limited capacity to dispute the alleged facts, displays a level of remorse and insight into how his alcohol and cannabis use was involved in his offending.
2. Cummins referred to the way in which Wilson spoke about his past offending. The First Cummins' Report said:[62]

At interview [Wilson] acknowledged that until he had become sober he probably had not given much consideration to the impact of his offending on the victims and that he would not have given much attention to the issue of victim empathy because he was living the lifestyle of a chronic alcoholic, who for some of his working life had been a functioning alcoholic - as evidenced by his history of working as a butcher . . .

[Wilson] stated he has progressively addressed issues related to victim empathy and to developing insight into his offending history as a result of becoming sober and spending time in contact with [REMAR, on the ARC Program and now being significantly associated with the Church]. At interview he stated he is now regretful, remorseful and apologetic regarding his offending history. In this regard he acknowledged he now accepts that his perception, judgement and consequential thinking was chronically impaired when he was dependent on alcohol and/or cannabis. Nonetheless, he stated the major substance problem for him was alcohol.

. . .

At interview he spoke in a quiet, controlled and respectful manner. I regarded him as being a very cooperative interviewee. At no time did he attempt to minimise his criminal history or speak in derogatory terms regarding any of the victims of his offending, although he acknowledged his recall of his offending history was very piecemeal and very limited.

1. In the Second Cummins' Report, the following appeared:[63]

In my opinion he does express regret, remorse and embarrassment regarding his offending and at times he has spoken about the impact of his offending both on him and his victims. It is important to emphasise that the way he expresses regret, remorse and victim empathy is relatively unsophisticated - which in my opinion reflects his history of alcohol and drug use, his history of homelessness and the fact he is functioning intellectually at a relatively low level, although he is not suffering from an intellectual disability. In my opinion he is not functioning within the borderline range.

1. One of the matters the Secretary had wanted to raise with Cummins was how Wilson expressed the regret. While I noted that Cummins did not quote what Wilson said, I have nevertheless given weight to Cummins' descriptions of Wilson's insight and remorse given it was based on their two comprehensive assessment sessions. I also gave weight to the conclusions Cummins drew on those matters given his extensive professional experience, including that described in [154] and [155] above.
2. In his evidence-in-chief, Wilson was asked how he now feels about his past criminal record. He said he tries not to think about it too much. Since he has been baptised, he has asked the Lord for forgiveness. He said if he could ask for forgiveness from his victims he would. He stated he is trying to look ahead to a brighter future.
3. I record that, amongst the materials relied on by Wilson, there was a YouTube video of him speaking at Church and telling his story. He was frank about his past actions.

Insight into alcohol misuse and its impacts on behaviour

1. I have summarised Wilson's efforts to address his alcohol abuse over time and his eventual current period of sobriety starting in around October 2021.
2. I referred earlier to Wilson telling Cummins that he had come to realise he could not drink any alcohol at all. He gave evidence, confirmed by others, that he can attend pubs and similar places and is comfortable drinking soft drinks.
3. When asked in cross-examination if he had drunk at all since October 2021, Wilson said no. In examination-in-chief, he referred to relying on prayer each day to help him not drink. He gave evidence that his time at REMAR taught him to surround himself with the 'right people, great people' who are always there for him.
4. Wilson referred to the change in himself, from someone who had long hair and was intoxicated and now well dressed and sober. He referred to wanting to set a good example.
5. In the context of his description of plans for the future, Wilson was asked what he had to offer young people. Wilson said he was still young at heart, referring to his skateboard riding, and said he wanted to share how the mistakes he had made had 'moulded' him into the person he is today. He referred to the mistakes as giving him wisdom. When asked by his solicitor what those 'mistakes' were, Wilson referred to learning that alcohol was not the answer to problems. He spoke of how, when young, people do not know what they want to be and do not care about the future. He said he did not expect to be asked to teach surfing at age 44. He referred to being angry in the past, cursing a lot and being easily frustrated. He described as now being 'blessed' and being able to 'laugh off' frustrations and 'diffuse the moment'. He now laughs to take away anger.
6. In his evidence (and when assessed by Cummins) Wilson gave two examples of times he managed a difficult situation without resorting to alcohol.
7. He was working as a butcher in around early 2025. The boss asked him to go outside for a discussion and grabbed Wilson by the throat. Wilson stated that he 'smiled' and quit the job. He went to the police and reported the boss. It did not go anywhere because of insufficient evidence. Wilson said he kept calm. In the past he would have reacted in the same way as before but he did not do that at all. He said his Christian faith had taught him how to react.
8. When asked more about the incident in cross-examination, Wilson said the boss had referred to him as a 'pisshead' and Wilson had referred to being three years sober. The boss said something like 'you're not there yet'. He also said the boss talked to him about something and pulled at him as some sort of practical joke. Wilson indicated it was not funny and that the boss had issues. The boss then grabbed him around the throat. Wilson suggested the boss asked Wilson to help him as he was throttling him.
9. When I asked more about what happened, Wilson said he was catching a bus or riding his bike to work and, although he did not realise it, he had a broken foot. The other workers let his tires down so he had to walk to the service station. They claimed they did not do it and, during the altercation, the boss said 'are you accusing me?'.
10. The Employer was aware of the incident. He recalled Wilson came home saying he was stressed and they talked it through as a means to navigate the emotions (when they are 'simmering') and find solutions.
11. The second example concerned Wilson's driving licence which he had lost due to drink/driving. As five years had passed, he thought he would be able to get his licence back with a requirement to use an interlock device. About two years before the hearing, Wilson went to VicRoads and was told that he had to start again from the beginning with a learner's permit. He described it as a 'confronting moment' and that he felt a lot of emotions. He wanted to curse and was tempted by a nearby bottle shop but a person he described as a friend and Mentor helped him get through it without using alcohol. He stated the Mentor listened to him. While he stated the Mentor did not have experience with alcoholism, he had dealt with others who had.
12. The Mentor gave evidence in support of Wilson and stated that he was present at VicRoads (while Wilson's evidence suggested he was there alone and called the Mentor on the phone). The Mentor's evidence was that, when Wilson was told that he had to re-start the process for gaining his driver's licence he raised his voice in frustration but immediately realised he was speaking loudly, looked at the staff member and said 'I know it's not you' and 'I'm sorry it seems I'm taking it out on you'.
13. They left the building and they noticed there was a bottle shop across the road. The Mentor's evidence was that he was concerned that Wilson might be tempted but he was not at all. On his experience with others, he thought Wilson could have gone there but he did not. He explained that, with his own past experience, he was amazed Wilson did not go to the bottle shop but that was because of his experience rather than because of anything to do with Wilson.
14. In cross-examination, Wilson was asked about triggers for his use of alcohol. He identified stress and depression as risks but also said he did not struggle with those anymore. He was asked if he would be triggered if he did not get along with someone. Wilson said no, because he had learnt to understand people. He understood you will not always get along with everyone, referring to the butcher boss incident.
15. Wilson was asked about supports he could rely on if he was triggered. Wilson referred to his Mentor who was described as being one phone call away.
16. Wilson referred to being with others at REMAR, how it was a changing group every time with chances to have discussions about how he had been and the good things in his life. He referred to a REMAR counsellor (of the kind Britto described) who he spoke with monthly.
17. When asked if he had to deal with a traumatic event, Wilson said he believed he could manage his triggers. He said he had thought about it and would use prayer and think about how his life was before. He said he would 'never' want to go back there.
18. Wilson agreed with the proposition that alcohol dependency was a lifelong condition. When asked how he worked at staying sober, Wilson said he continued to learn, he helped others and let others see he was in sobriety and in a good head space. He wanted to make good decisions. He said his brain was 'still re-training' itself but he seemed to be making good decisions.
19. In the context of his wish to work with young people, Wilson referred to having learned to be more respectful of others, of developing a more positive attitude to life and gaining hope. His 'key words' were love, hope and peace.
20. I asked Wilson about his use of cannabis. He stated he used it alongside alcohol and that, amongst the crowd he was hanging out with at music festivals and the like, it was a matter of seeing how 'written off' you could get. Wilson noted he had recently gone to a festival sober and had a 'great time' including because for the first time he remembered it.
21. Wilson referred to using cannabis for bingeing and said alcohol was daily. The detox was more directed at the alcohol. He stated that he ceased all use of cannabis when he went to REMAR in October 2021.
22. The Sister was asked if she knew what Wilson's triggers for alcohol use were and how he would manage. She said he did not need to be away from alcohol to avoid using it. She referred to things coming out when he was drunk like childhood trauma and not knowing his father. She was asked how he manages challenges. The Sister referred to him walking away and explaining himself when he feels uncomfortable. She referred to a time when he lost his phone and was frustrated. She said he was able to have a discussion about it and retrace his steps. She said he 'saved his pennies' and so it was a big issue for him to have to spend on a new phone.
23. When asked if she thought he would relapse, the Sister said no and that he would have already by now. In cross-examination, the Sister confirmed that opinion.
24. She knew it was a day-to-day struggle but said he now has people and things in place and he knows he cannot drink. She said in the past he would have said he was 'trying' to stop, whereas he has stopped. She said she was so proud of him.

1. As noted above, Cummins understood that Wilson had not been required to do a Men's Behaviour Change (MBC) program as part of any of the sentencing. He had regard to that in his formulation of the risk Wilson might present.
2. The 27 February 2020 order that imposed the 2020 CCO, required Wilson to undergo treatment and rehabilitation including 'Offending behaviour program as directed'.[64]
3. Notwithstanding that, a Corrections 'Program Referral Form dated 3 March 2020 was marked to indicate that a referral to an MBC was 'NA' (ie, not applicable). I noted that the eligibility for an MBC program included '[c]ommitted an offence against an intimate partier in the current episode of offending'.[65] That criteria did not apply to Wilson.
4. In the context of a contravention of his 2020 CCO in around July 2020, Wilson was referred to an MBC program in April 2020. He was also referred for a psychoeducational workshop designed for people on a CCO, called 'LINCS'. As to the latter, the TB shows that Wilson did not meet 'the eligibility criteria and had current family violence offending matters'.[66]
5. The relevant report recommended that Wilson's 2020 CCO be cancelled and that he be re-sentenced in respect of the February 2020 offending because he had:

spent much of this year transient, moving from emergency accommodation to sleeping rough. Despite this, [Wilson] has not engaged with the full support offered to assist him in addressing his substance abuse issues and homelessness.

1. No mention was made of no MBC program being completed in the recommendations.
2. I was not taken to other materials which demonstrated that the referral was made again or that Wilson's non-engagement in an MBC program had raised concerns about his broader compliance with the 2020 CCO. As summarised earlier the 2020 CCO was completed in December 2021.
3. The Secretary's Written Submissions expressed concern that Wilson had conveyed to Cummins that he was 'rehabilitated in terms of violent offending without having completed any targeted behaviour change programs'.[67] I record that Cummins appeared to have had comprehensive access to materials such as those included in the TB and so it is not clear to what degree he placed reliance on what Wilson told him about the MBC program or whether any others were mentioned.
4. In all the circumstances, I have given no weight to the fact Wilson did not complete an MBC program or to Cummins' references to the topic in circumstances where Cummins' understanding of the requirements appears to be correct. Having said that, noting Cummins considered the fact Wilson was not required to attend an MBC program was significant, I have read the conclusions he expressed about Wilson's risk of engaging in future violent offending with some caution.

References and other information about Wilson's behaviour since the offending

1. Wilson relied on personal character references from the Employer, a Friend, the Mentor and the Pastor. He also relied on letters written in the context of his completion of the ARC program (by the ARC Case Manager) and a Team Leader from an alcohol and other drugs service Wilson attended between 2019 and 2021. That material is also relevant to Wilson's behaviour since the offending.
2. During cross-examination, Wilson was asked what information or history he had provided to his referees. Wilson stated that:
   • The ARC Case Manager had full access to his police history;
   • He had given the Employer the police summaries and WWC Exclusion decision - he said the Employer knew his full history and 'every charge';
   • He had told the Friend about 'some' of the offences against members of the public and also said he was intoxicated at the time. He thought he had sent the Friend the police summaries (but in fact had not); and
   • He had been open with the Pastor over the last three years and emailed him a complete copy of his police record.

1. The ARC Case Manager's letter was dated 10 October 2019 and it recounted Wilson's involvement with ACR.[68] Relevantly, it said Wilson:

Wilson advocated for himself at his ARC pre-list hearing 8th April 2021, articulating he was at transitional place in his life and had experienced an accumulation of traumatic experiences with quite significant losses prior to his ARC referral. [He] expressed he would value the opportunity and support ARC provide and willing to meet the obligation the program requires, which would require him taking a 4-hour bus journey each way to attend weekly appointments. To [Wilson's] credit he demonstrated to be a man of his word and met the obligation he agreed to. In my experience someone who is invested in make such an effort is serious and committed to achieving positive change.

[Wilson's] primary support needs during his ARC episode were alcohol dependence and homelessness. He] worked collaboratively and engaged with all the relevant services to rebuild purposeful meaning in his life. This included participating in an inpatient AOD rehabilitation centre to address his alcohol dependence. [Wilson] completed the full duration of the program and renewed his connection to his faith and religion. He concluded with ARC on the 16th of December 2021.

1. The Team Leader wrote a letter dated 29 May 2024.[69] Relevantly, she confirmed that, following a referral from ARC, Wilson engaged with AOD services between 2019 and 2021 directed at counselling and care recovery co-ordination.
2. Wilson was said to have engaged well with the service and expressed a willingness to make changes to his lifestyle. The Team Leader stated that Wilson 'displayed good insight into the link between his alcohol use and the impact it was having on his life expressing a desire to become abstinent and improve his situation'. Positive feedback was received from REMAR regarding Wilson's participation there.
3. The Team Leader's last contact with Wilson was on 16 December 2021 and she acknowledged that she was 'unable to make any claims regarding his current substance use'.

1. The Employer provided two written references, the first in an email dated 27 September 2023[70] (during the Secretary's WSA decision-making process) and in a second email dated 9 June 2024.[71]
2. The first email referred to how the Employer met Wilson, his work with the Employer's business and his involvement with his family. The Employer said, from his interactions and observations of Wilson, he had 'no hesitation' saying Wilson was 'a man of good character and is someone who wants to give back to society'. He expressed the belief that working in his business would be great for Wilson's personal recovery and reintegration into society'. He said he would be very happy to take Wilson on as an employee if he had his WWC Clearance.
3. The second email referred to how he had spent time with Wilson, including their mutual involvement with the Church and time spent surfing and fishing. The Employer stated he had been encouraging Wilson to get his WCC Clearance so he would work for him. He encouraged Wilson to challenge the Secretary's decision. He stated that Wilson had 'always been honest about his past' and was 'genuinely searching for a future career that takes him in a new direction'. The Employer considered Wilson had the skills and personality to work in his business and he would be 'the first to employ him' if his WWC Clearance application was approved. He said Wilson 'regularly surfs with my own kids and I have no concerns regarding his suitability to work with children'.
4. In cross-examination the Employer confirmed he had seen Wilson's criminal history and the Secretary's decision. He had paid particular attention to the November 2020 offending at the beach. He also stated he had talked to Wilson about each event to make sure he had read it properly and to ensure there was nothing involving children so he could be confident about supporting Wilson's WWC Clearance application.
5. At the hearing, the Employer gave evidence that:
   • After meeting Wilson at the Church and seeing him surf, he thought Wilson would be competent as an assistant instructor and good with people;
   • He was aware of Wilson's past criminal history and had seen the paperwork. He was supportive of people who want a chance for a fresh start; and
   • If Wilson was given a WWC Clearance, he could work as an assistant instructor with groups of children and then get his credentials to be an instructor. He likes how Wilson interacts with people and said Wilson was 'positive for my business'.
6. When asked if he had any concerns with Wilson having a WWC Clearance, he replied 'I wouldn't say so'. He referred to school groups having staff with them and heaps of people being around. He also noted that there was nothing in Wilson's history regarding children
7. The Employer was encouraging of work Wilson could do with youth at the Church demonstrating how a person can have a history but move past pitfalls with support and move on. The Employer was comfortable with Wilson working with his own children as part of youth ministry.
8. The Employer stated he had never seen Wilson drink alcohol or use cannabis (since they first met in 2022). When asked in cross-examination about any concerns regarding alcohol use, the Employer said Wilson had appropriate people around, he looked to where he could be encouraging and to show Wilson he did not need to be 'stuck in a rut'.
9. He was asked about Wilson's triggers for using alcohol. The Employer referred to Wilson having nothing to do or look forward to in the past and a lack of hope but now he had faith, a job and a 'portal of hope'. He confirmed, though, that he had only known Wilson post-rehabilitation.
10. When asked how Wilson manages when things become difficult, the Employer said he does not try to deal with it himself (which is a risk for 'blokes') but has the humility to seek help from mentors in the Church.
11. In cross-examination, the Employer explained that their rule was that no one was left alone with children unless they were a parent and the same applied to Wilson. As to his own children, the Employer said they are never left with any male, unless it is his brother. He applied the same rule to everyone around his children, saying he had often had staff staying and it was easier to have the same rule for all.
12. One of the Secretary's oral submissions was to the effect that, because he was living and working with the Employer, Wilson had been protected from the stresses of life and had been under near constant supervision. That was said to indicate Wilson's capacity to manage without alcohol had not been tested yet. I do not accept that submission. The Employer's evidence showed that he (and I understood his wife and children) are away six months of the year and Wilson has responsibility for looking after the property and providing support for the Employer's parents. Further, the Employer referred to others staying at the property from time to time, indicating Wilson is one of several people there rather than being supported by the Employer in that protective way. Finally, the evidence indicated that Wilson was largely responsible for himself day to day and so was required to handle himself in doing so.

1. The Friend wrote a reference in support of Wilson dated 17 October 2023.[72]
2. The reference explained that the Friend was the retired Chief Executive Officer of a Christian youth camps organisation.
3. The Friend met Wilson at the Church in around 2022. He said, since then, he had watched Wilson 'grow as a person and particularly his desire to serve and help other people who are homeless or suffering from substance/alcohol abuse'. He stated Wilson had done some labouring work for him, carried out with 'determination and thoroughness'. Wilson was not paid for the work but did it to help out.
4. During their time travelling to that work in the car, the Friend heard Wilson's 'story, his past mistakes and all that he has done and put in place to change his life'. He said he was 'so encouraged' by Wilson's 'determination to turn his life around'. He said in the whole time he had known Wilson, he had found him to be a 'very pleasant, open, honest and kind man'.
5. The Friend gave evidence at the hearing.
6. In addition to knowing Wilson at the Church and through the labouring work mentioned above, the Friend said Wilson had, for the last six to eight months, been at his family table for meals and they catch up regularly.
7. The Friend was aware of Wilson's involvement at the Church as described above. He said he had seen Wilson participating in the Wednesday night group and encouraging others, including new attendees. He said Wlson had good emotional intelligence and an ability 'to read the room'. Wilson knew when to speak and said he held him in 'very high regard'. The Friend had enjoyed seeing Wilson's 'journey'.
8. Wilson had told the Friend about his dependence on alcohol and intoxication. He could not remember the criminal history in detail but was aware there had been violence towards others and that alcohol had been the trigger for the offending. The only stressful event he had seen Wilson deal with was the refusal of his application for a WWC Clearance. He stated that Wilson was disappointed but handled it pretty well. Wilson had decided it was something 'worth fighting for' and something he, the Friend, believed he should fight for because he knew the changes that had happened in Wilson.
9. The Friend was asked if he had seen Wilson intoxicated: he said 'never' and that he had never smelt alcohol on him. He later said he had 'never' seen Wilson drink alcohol.
10. The Friend gave evidence that his father had been an alcoholic and how, as a consequence, from early in his life he would 'write off' people who were intoxicated and was not trusting of them. He had learnt that 'once wasn't always' and he had enjoyed seeing Wilson grow, his wish to help others and to help young people.
11. The Friend has two adult children and a five year old grandson. He was asked if he had any concerns about Wilson working with his grandson and his response was 'no'. He gave the same response to whether he had any concerns about Wilson working with young people at the Church.
12. The Friend spoke about Wilson attending a youth outing and he saw how good Wilson could be to bring the participant's 'masks' down and engage.
13. When asked about Wilson's supports, the Friend referred to himself, the Pastor, the members of the Church Wednesday group and other Church leaders - 'a great bunch of people'.

1. The Mentor is retired. His previous career involved property construction. He was involved in setting up youth and family camps, volunteering for youth programs and working as a cook for the youth camps. Early in his working life, the Mentor worked as a probation officer, working with young people, including some 'street kids'.
2. The Mentor is a member of the Church council. It employs the ministers and staff and is responsible for overseeing various obligations including safety.
3. The Mentor first met Wilson through the Employer and through the Church. He said Wilson came there looking for involvement and he had seen him over time work to help others. He said that if someone in the community needed a hand - cleaning up yards and the like - Wilson would help. Soon before the hearing, Wilson had stated he wanted to formally join the Church. He was interviewed and asked what he wanted to get out of it and what he would provide to the Church. The Mentor said Wilson referred to contributing to prayer for and with others, helping others and gaining a united purpose. The Mentor described himself as 'impressed' by Wilson although it was 'no surprise' because 'this guy's different'.
4. Because Wilson does not have a WWC Clearance, he could be involved in youth programs but not be a leader. The Mentor also mentioned that a WWC Clearance is required to work in aged care settings.
5. Wilson had not told the Mentor much about his offending but he said he was not there to hear all he got involved with. The Mentor said that was part of Wilson's past experiences he regrets but his role is to help Wilson get over and beyond that in the new life he wants. He said they work on 'his new life'. Having said all of that, the Mentor said that, when Wilson 'opens his mouth he shows a fair amount of remorse'.
6. As to his role supporting Wilson, the Mentor described that as the biggest reward. Wilson had shown appreciation for the Mentor 'reaching into his life'. He referred to their relationship not just being another help for Wilson to get through but it also allowed them to see what good they could offer to each other. The Mentor said he was more than willing to give him time when he needs it. He said his wife often says 'It's [Wilson], I guess you'll go'. The Mentor said he appreciated Wilson being in his life and expected it to be for the long term
7. The Mentor referred to offering Wilson help with basic matters, such as household items and a bike and offering help with following up job applications and the like. On one occasion, he was 'only too pleased' to accompany Wilson to follow up on a job, so they saw he had someone in his life. He said Wilson would listen to advice when it was given instead of saying 'I know, I know' and instead acknowledged that he has heard what has been said.
8. When asked about what he would do if he saw a change in Wilson's demeanour or if he had a hard time, the Mentor referred to the events at VicRoads. He also referred to his experience as a probation officer and working with street kids. He said he had seen Wilson accept 'that's life' and get over something without exploding. He had talked himself down from reverting to a way of expressing frustration (that is unacceptable) to one that is acceptable. He verbalised the frustrations, without using 'colourful language' - the Mentor was 'very impressed'.
9. The second time the Mentor had seen Wilson in a challenging situation was when Wilson had to go to a hospital. He was speaking in a loud voice, but not being abusive. Police were called and, within 10 minutes, they came out and it was resolved. The hospital staff were concerned about Wilson's behaviour but, the Mentor stated, it was just his loud voice. He told Wilson that he had to 'work on that loud voice'. He said Wilson wanted to change. When asked if the loud voice could mean children would be intimidated, the Mentor acknowledged they could be and that Wilson needed to use a lower voice. He added that the emphasis was on working on it and that Wilson took it on and did so.
10. The Mentor was asked whether he had any concern that Wilson would harm someone if he again faced a similar situation to those he had described. His answer was 'definitely not'.
11. The Mentor described a time when he had to ask another person who was working as a youth leader to 'step out' because he was not suitable. That person was too friendly with young boys and the Mentor kept an eye on him. It got to the stage where he could not take a chance and told the person that he did not think the role/place suited him. He said he watches Wilson as a result of that experience and had not seen him falter. He also described quizzing Wilson to check what he is thinking and said he seemed to be on the same track as he and that he could not see him offending against someone. He described Wilson as a team player in the Church setting. He said it was impressive how Wilson says 'what can we do' instead of 'I'm going to do this'.
12. The Mentor was aware of the supports Wilson had via the Employer and others. Wilson knew he needed to seek advice and was willing to do so. He said Wilson can talk to the Pastor and others. He seeks other opinions and works out what to do. He referred to Wilson saying 'I'm stuck and I'm telling you because I'm trying to find out what to do'.
13. The Mentor has many grandchildren, some adults and some under 10. He was asked whether he was comfortable with Wilson working with the younger children. He said 'yes', including if he was in a leadership role.
14. The Mentor also explained that he would still keep an eye on things because you could not take things for granted. He referred to giving people freedom to operate but letting them know there are boundaries.
15. Those approaches applied not just to Wilson but to anyone new to volunteering. He said Wilson was not 'exceptional' and there would be no need to make a special case for him to do work in the Church. In cross-examination, the Mentor clarified that he would keep an eye on every volunteer whether they had a criminal or substance use issue. He referred to giving people with different backgrounds a chance to show they were 'better than this'.
16. He was asked whether he would have any concern if Wilson could work in any environment with children unsupervised: he said 'no it wouldn't give me any concern'. He was asked about Wilson working in family day care. The Mentor said that gave him no concern. He noted that at the Employer's property there was a young family and primary aged children, including young girls. He said there had never been any indicator that he would have to be worried.
17. The Mentor was asked if he had ever seen Wilson drink alcohol: he said 'no never' and when asked if he had seen Wilson intoxicated, he said 'no sign of it'. The Mentor explained his father had died an alcoholic and that he 'knows about drinkers and alcohol'. He went on to say it was 'a miracle this guy doesn't drink' but 'when switched off, it's switched off'.
18. The Mentor was aware that others around Wilson drank alcohol, including backpackers staying with the Employer but Wilson was not interested in their drinking.
19. The Mentor referred to knowing people who went to AA while still heavily drinking and telling 'a big story'. He said Wilson was not like that and so while the Mentor's own childhood meant he could project onto others, that was not the case with Wilson. He was able to be around others drinking and not do so himself.

1. The Pastor wrote two references, one in late 2023 (in the context of the Secretary's decision-making processes)[73] and one dated 5 June 2024.[74]
2. The first reference said the Pastor had known Wilson since 2022. He referred to his attendance at the Church and involvement in activities and groups. He stated that, from his interactions and observations, he had no hesitation stating that Wilson is 'a man of good character, and is someone who wants to give back to society'. He gave some examples of why he said Wilson was of good character as follows:

[Wilson's] contribution, commitment, and participation in the life and activities of our church are very highly regarded by myself, and the wider church community. I see that [Wilson] has a very generous heart, as he regularly offers, and helps on a voluntary basis in practical ways with events at church, and also with individual people in need.

[Wilson] is enthusiastic about life, and his optimistic attitude encourages myself, and also others to see things in a positive light. It has been great to see [Wilson] develop healthy interdependent friendships with people . . . and also maintain connections with his family.

1. The second reference confirmed the Pastor was aware of this proceeding. It included the following:

I have seen [Wilson's] character to be one of integrity, generosity, self-control, self-awareness, adaptability, kindness, and he is self-reflective.

I observe [Wilson's] work ethic to be one of punctuality, enthusiasm, willingness, and determination to get a job done. When around other adults [Wilson] conducts himself with eagerness, he is relational, and intentional. When [Wilson] is around children, he is encouraging, self-aware, and passionate to see young people strive to be all that they can be.

In the time that I have known [Wilson] I have observed that he has the skills to regulate his emotions and manage any apparent alcohol addiction. I have seen this in the positive decisions and choices that [he] has made when under stress, or faced with challenges. In my opinion, based on my observations, I do not believe that [Wilson] poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

1. The Pastor gave evidence and confirmed his knowledge of Wilson and his involvement at the Church as referred to earlier in these Reasons.
2. He gave evidence that his knowledge of Wilson's past offending was what Wilson had told him about public intoxication and assault of others on the beach (in November 2020). He stated that the past offending had come up a 'fair bit' over the three years he had known Wilson. He later gave evidence about Wilson being aware of the impact his use of alcohol had on his health and how he could have had a better life. He referred to Wilson expressing sadness and disappointment at how people saw him in the past, as well as shame.
3. He stated that Wilson had shown a lot of reflection and remorse. He regretted his past actions and could see how they had led to the crises and troubles he had experienced and harm to others. The Pastor described Wilson as now on a different track through his rehabilitation and his faith community. He also referred to Wilson speaking of regret and wasted years and not wanting anyone else to experience what he had.
4. Wilson had not spoken to the Pastor about the impact of the offending on victims.
5. The Pastor confirmed that all volunteers at the Church must have a WWC Clearance and no adults are allowed to be alone with children, in line with the guidelines formulated after the Royal. In response to a question from me, the Pastor confirmed that no special consideration applied to Wilson: the same rules would be applied to him as they were for anyone.
6. The Pastor confirmed he was aware Wilson wanted to work with youth, to share his experience and help motivate them by hearing his own experiences. He referred to an inter-church alliance providing shelter to homeless people and how Wilson wished to be an advocate given his experience but he could not do so without a WWC Clearance.
7. The Pastor has three children, two of whom are under 18. He was asked if he had any concerns with Wilson working with them: he said 'none at all'. He had seen Wilson engage with children at Church events and described him as 'very enthusiastic and caring' and said the children 'thought a lot of him' because he was interested in what is happening with them.
8. He was asked if Wilson's loud voice raised concerns for parents or if it intimidated children: he said 'no', that the children usually had the loudest voices and he had no concerns.
9. The Pastor stated he had 'never' seen Wilson drink alcohol or intoxicated.
10. As to supports, the Pastor confirmed Wilson had a 'very healthy network' of people in his family, at the Church, his REMAR connections, the Employer, the Mentor and himself. He referred to it as a 'robust network'. He also referred to Wilson's wish to help others because of his experience, including through his BBQs in Dandenong.
11. In cross-examination, the Pastor gave an example of Wilson regulating his emotions at a Wednesday evening gathering where 'live situations come along' including one where someone took exception to Wilson clearing away a cup before he had finished. The person got quite upset and raised his voice at Wilson who 'stopped, listened, didn't interrupt' and managed his breathing. When the person had finished, Wilson explained what had happened, apologised and sat with the person then and the following week.
12. As to triggers, the Pastor stated he believed Wilson had the skills to manage his addiction and knew challenges he had faced may be triggered by use of alcohol. He was aware of the VicRoads events.

Submissions on Wilson's behaviour since he committed the offence/s

1. In response to the Secretary's submissions, Wilson's Written Submissions[75] referred to the facts in the Tribunal's 2022 decision in THN v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety[76] (THN). The applicant in that case had engaged in two instances of Category B offending involving the theft of a phone and a baseball cap from a 15 and 16 year old respectively. He was intoxicated at the time of the first offence and had been discharged from hospital following an overdose just before the second was committed.
2. There were several similar factors present in that case including an abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs for over four years and what was described as 'a remarkable transformation' resulting from the applicant's involvement with a church, bible study and prayer. A distinguishing fact was that the applicant attended Odessey House for AOD treatment.
3. The Written Submissions said that, in very similar circumstances, Wilson was highly involved in his Church and through that had met and started working with the Employer. It was noted that he was working there and as a butcher three days a week. It was noted that Wilson continued to attend REMAR, often on a monthly basis, including to provide encouragement to residents.
4. At the hearing, Wilson's solicitor distinguished a case the Secretary's submissions referred to, noting it involved offending against the applicant's 15 year old daughter and, unlike Wilson who made full admissions, that applicant had suggested his daughter had exaggerated.[77]
5. My attention was drawn to the matters referred to above as cogent evidence that Wilson had 'turned his life around' and to show that he had engaged with significant rehabilitation leading to his ongoing sobriety.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions started by noting that:[78]
   • The Tribunal had previously found it is open to consider both an applicant's response to the offence itself and also general behaviour since the offending, under this consideration; and
   • The Tribunal may determine to place less weight on this factor in light of the limited time which has elapsed since the offence. It referred to a case where the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been of good behaviour for the preceding one and a half years but the evidence led to the conclusion that, while he had all but given up alcohol and had appeared to have complied with court orders, it had nevertheless been only about two and a half years since the offence. The Tribunal concluded that had not been a long enough time to establish a pattern of behaviour which could satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
2. As to Wilson, the Secretary referred to the fact that his criminal history does not record any offending since the November 2020 offending.
3. The Secretary's Written Submissions[79] referred to Wilson's statements about how he was struggling immensely with his daily life, battling homelessness, alcohol, substance abuse issues and maintaining healthy relationships. It noted that the materials asserted there had been significant change since 2020 and that Wilson was now in a more stable living situation. Reference was made to his work with the Employer and his engagement with the Church. It referred to Wilson's statement about being on a 'Christian journey' which included him reading the bible daily.
4. The Secretary's Written Submissions (which were written in advance of the hearing) noted that Wilson had self-reported having turned around his life, however, they submitted that he had 'not provided cogent evidence to demonstrate this assertion and how he maintains rehabilitation and abstinence beyond engagement with the church and employment'.
5. At the hearing, the Secretary's counsel commended Wilson on his progress over the last three and a half years. The submissions expressed concern about Wilson's reliance on his faith as a means to maintain sobriety. My attention was drawn to the fact REMAR was a faith based program rather than one which involved formal rehabilitation provided by health professionals and others with relevant qualifications. REMAR was described as a 'Christian commune' which has 'vague and ad hoc systems'.
6. The Secretary noted that Wilson is not engaged in regular AA or similar programs or counselling and further, that Wilson had not undertaken any specific behavioural courses.

Findings on Wilson's behaviour since he committed the offence/s

1. I start with the Secretary's concerns that Wilson has not undertaken (unspecified) formal behavioural programs.
2. Where Wilson's offending was all connected with his abuse of alcohol and there has been none since he became sober, I do not accept it was necessary for him to identify and undertake programs directed at generalised behaviour or attitudes. As noted, he completed the 2020 CCO with no reference to a failure to complete any recommended programs.
3. It is correct that, other than his involvement with REMAR and the Church, since about February 2022, Wilson has not received AOD or other counselling. I noted Cummins' opinion that no further treatment of that kind was required for Wilson's Alcohol Use Disorder as it was in sustained remission (see [173] above).
4. There were some competing submissions made at the hearing about whether AA and like programs have a religious basis which may be compared to REMAR's approach.
5. In my view, Cummins' Reports gave a coherent and informed assessment of the role a 'higher power' (howsoever defined by an individual) plays in recovery from alcohol abuse. While further evidence about the basis for his views may have been of assistance, I accept those parts of his Reports which express his opinion based on his long professional experience working in the area.
6. I noted that his opinion was not confined to the 'higher power' or religious motivations for Wilson. As summarised above, in both Cummins' Reports, he referred to other factors which had supported Wilson's recovery, including appropriate AOD treatment, the support of family and others and secure employment (see [155] and [171] above).
7. There is no need for me to address the submissions addressing AA and whether REMAR was a 'Christian commune' which did not offer appropriate AOD services because in my view, the fact faith was an initiating and is an ongoing feature in Wilson's progress is not a basis on which to minimise the enormous advances he has made or the only method by which he has reached sobriety.
8. As to the source of Wilson's sobriety, I find:
   • At least twice, he attended hospital based detoxification programs and, on the second occasion, it was successful. He was prescribed naltrexone and an anti-depressant, what I understand are standard and appropriate treatments;
   • In stark contrast to his past around 30 years of regular and often daily alcohol use, Wilson has not consumed alcohol for nearly five years. While not quite expressed in this way, it is apparent that Wilson thinks about and encourages himself to remain sober everyday - the fact he relies on prayer to do so does not change the fact that he has completely changed his daily life by excluding alcohol;
   • After applying the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, Cummins diagnosed Wilson as having had a severe Alcohol Use Disorder prior to October 2021 and he found that, as at March 2024, that Disorder was 'technically in sustained remission';
   • On Wilson's evidence and that of his Sister and the other witnesses he called (see above from [242]), I am satisfied that he has not had any alcohol at all since October 2021 despite facing some challenging circumstances;
   • Wilson's living circumstances are now stable, as compared to his past significant periods of homelessness associated with his alcoholism; and
   • Wilson has stable and ongoing employment as a butcher with other paid and voluntary work available to him if he is given a WWC Clearance.
9. For the purposes of the overarching WSA section 107(1) assessment of whether I may be satisfied that giving Wilson a WWC Clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, the critical factor is not the path he has taken to make the changes discussed in these reasons but rather the fact of the changes and whether they can be sustained in the context of any identified risk Wilson presents to children.

The likelihood of future threat to a child - section 63(1)(h)

1. Consistent with the Secretary's Written Submissions[80] my findings on this factor have been informed by the following:
   • The matters in section 63(1)(h) of the WSA is the 'key consideration' in making decisions under the WSA;
   • It is for the applicant to show that they are not a risk rather than for the Secretary to show that they are;
   • 'A chance of a future threat, irrespective of its magnitude, is a relevant consideration under [the pre-WSA equivalent provision]. Clearly, where the chance is minimal, the consideration may favour the applicant. The greater the chance, the less favourable is the consideration from the applicant's perspective;[81]
   • The 'likelihood of future threat' means no more than 'the chance of future threat' and '[a] chance of a future threat, irrespective of its magnitude, is a relevant consideration' for the purposes of this factor. Where the chance is 'minimal', the consideration may favour the applicant but '[t]he greater the chance, the less favourable is the consideration from the applicant's perspective'; and
   • The Tribunal's consideration of the question of risk can take into account expert evidence and non-expert evidence.

1. The Secretary conceded that Wilson 'does not pose a risk to children when sober' however it submitted he posed a risk to adults and children when intoxicated, 'as is demonstrated by his criminal history, including his inability to recall the events that make up that criminal history'.[82]
2. Wilson's Written Submissions stated that he has 'always regulated his behaviour and emotions with children, even in the context of alcohol intoxication'. They referred to an absence of 'any evidence or allegation of any sexual proclivity towards children or of any violence or threats towards children'. They noted that no children had ever been included as affected family members in any past Intervention Order involving Wilson.[83]
3. I proceed on the basis that the threat I am required to assess under sections 107(1) of the WSA and section 63(h) is that, if Wilson again abused alcohol and was intoxicated, he may engage in offending of a similarly serious kind as that described above and in doing so, he may pose a threat to a child in the vicinity. The kind of threat is of physical harm given there is no history of any sexual harm to any person.

1. As illustrated by the summary in these Reasons, Wilson has never offended in any way against a child and has never been the subject of an Intervention Order directed at the protection of children.
2. Assuming for now that past behaviour is a useful indicator of likely future behaviour, based on Wilson's past offending, the likelihood of him presenting a future risk of causing harm to a child while intoxicated is very low.
3. I give weight to the fact there has been no offending of any kind for close to five years and there have been no further Intervention Orders in place since 2020. That supports a finding that, as long as he remains sober, Wilson does not pose a threat of harm to anyone.

1. It is not surprising that a person who had been abusing alcohol from their late teens into mid-adulthood would face challenges addressing their long term Alcohol Use Disorder and that it took several efforts over a number of years to become sober.
2. For Wilson, he faced the additional challenge of lengthy periods when he was homeless.
3. As discussed above, while Wilson had what might be regarded as mainstream forms of assistance to reach that point, he attributes his ongoing sobriety to his religious beliefs and the connection to his family and Church community.
4. Irrespective of how he was able to address his Disorder, I accept Cummins' professional opinion based on the testing described in his First Report that, as at March 2024 and June 2025, Wilson was in sustained remission. Accepting the evidence that Wilson has not used alcohol since then, I find that he remains in remission.
5. I also accept Cummins' assessment that, at the time of the assessments and find that Wilson did not require any ongoing treatment for his past Alcohol Use Disorder and so do not consider the Secretary's suggestion that the lack of ongoing counselling is of concern. I find that remains to be the case now.

1. As referred to earlier, Cummins' Reports contained some confusing anomalies regarding Wilson and APD and/or BPD. While evidence from him would have been of assistance, I accept the conclusion that he had neither at the time Cummins undertook his assessment either because it had resolved or because Wilson never had it.
2. I acknowledge that the materials indicate Wilson had some history of anxiety and depression, including the latter as at around October 2021 and in the context of this application. As discussed above, he was required to have mental health treatment as directed under his 2020 CCO but the information about that treatment is limited.
3. Cummins' First Report referred to Wilson 'feeling anxious and stressed regarding whether he would be ultimately issued with a WWC Clearance'. As at March 2024, the anxiety was described as 'severe' but was attributed to this proceeding. As at June 2025, the anxiety was described as 'moderate' and also connected to the outcome of this proceeding.[84] I note, the fact that Wilson handled that stress without resorting to alcohol or offending supports a finding that he has developed and maintained strong coping mechanisms.
4. Importantly, Cummins' conclusion was that Wilson was not, as at March 2024 or June 2025, diagnosed with any mental health disorder under the DSM-5. In my view, that addresses the Secretary's concern about Wilson not having ongoing mental health counselling or treatment.
5. I find that Wilson has no mental health condition which is a factor relevant to the assessment of the likelihood he presents as a future threat to a child.

1. On the question of insight,[85] referring to Maleckas v Secretary to the Department of Justice,[86] the Secretary noted that accepting responsibility for the offence and demonstrating remorse for the offending are 'highly relevant' to the 'any other matter considered relevant' factor (in the WSA, under section 63(1)j)). Kyrou J said that, as a matter of common sense, 'an offender who has no understanding that the offence of violence that he or she committed was wrong, may pose a greater risk to the safety of children than an offender who has shown insight and remorse in relation to such an offence'.
2. The Secretary submitted the fact that Wilson could recall little of his offending indicated that the degree of his insight was unclear. Having said that, the Secretary's Written Submissions said that he 'clearly knows that his conduct was wrong' and he acknowledged the role alcohol and cannabis played in fuelling the offending.
3. As to the Intervention Order matters, the Submissions noted that Wilson does not provide much detail or insight into the family violence offending. They noted that homelessness 'may' have played a part in the breaches. The Secretary submitted that there appeared to be a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of those kinds of orders and the importance of adhering to them. The submission was that Wilson's breaches of Intervention Orders 'should be a concern for the Tribunal' as those 'actions demonstrate failure in judgment and disregard for court orders'.
4. It was apparent to me from the evidence that Wilson had a large amount of regret for the years he had lost to his alcohol dependency. The references to his experience of homelessness in the TB and as summarised in these Reasons, point to a life of uncertainty and desperation. I noted Wilson's evidence that the only time in his life he had put on weight was when he was at REMAR. I noted the evidence about his reasons for going to the Sister's home despite the Intervention Order then in place. In my view, rather than a disregard for laws, the courts or his Sister's wishes, Wilson was driven by his homelessness and the hopelessness of his situation.
5. The following observations in Cummins' Second Report (and similar comments in the First) were of assistance to me and consistent with my understanding of how Wilson expressed himself as to insight and remorse:

In my opinion he does express regret, remorse and embarrassment regarding his offending and at times he has spoken about the impact of his offending both on him and his victims. It is important to emphasise that the way he expresses regret, remorse and victim empathy is relatively unsophisticated - which in my opinion reflects his history of alcohol and drug use, his history of homelessness and the fact he is functioning intellectually at a relatively low level, although he is not suffering from an intellectual disability. In my opinion he is not functioning within the borderline range.

1. I have summarised above Wilson's evidence before me that included a preference not to think too much about his past offending and life but also that, if he could ask for forgiveness from his victims, he would.
2. I agree with the Secretary's submission that Wilson knew what he had done was wrong. I agree with his solicitor's submission that the guilty pleas show he accepted what he was told he had done and did not put police to the proof.
3. Those matters, his Christian beliefs and his evidence about wishing to show young people how life can go wrong and to be a good example satisfy me that, unsophisticated or not, Wilson understands all of his conduct while intoxicated was serious and unacceptable. That extends to the breaches of the Intervention Orders. I have concluded he is remorseful for the harm to himself but also to the harm to others. I accept his evidence to the effect that, a reason to remain sober, is to never go back to that life, including the offending against others.
4. While not lengthy, Wilson gave evidence about the triggers for alcohol use being depression and anxiety. While not expressed in this way, having heard Wilson's evidence, I am satisfied that he would self-identify risks to himself if his circumstances in respect of housing, employment or family and Church support changed or he otherwise felt himself at risk of going back. I am equally satisfied that he would seek help before declining significantly.

1. I noted the evidence given by the Sister as to her current relationship with Wilson which has been informed by her knowledge of all his past offending and her unwillingness to put up with inappropriate behaviour. I am satisfied that she is currently and will continue to support Wilson to continue to not use alcohol and offend. It seemed to me she was an excellent influence on him and someone who will not tolerate back sliding. As she has seen Wilson intoxicated and living with all that brings, I have every confidence she will identify if he is having trouble and support him.
2. Even though the Church community members have only known Wilson sober, I accept they understand his past history of alcohol abuse and something of what it led to. I am satisfied their wish is to continue to see him build a life away from alcohol and as a responsible and moral person and they are ready to support him to talk, solve problems and move forward.
3. I give particular weight to the evidence given by the Employer as to the support he has offered and continues to offer Wilson. I approached the evidence of the Mentor in a similar way, noting that he has been a first port of call before and expressed a wish to continue in that kind of role. The Pastor's evidence indicated to me that he would remain steadfast in his support for Wilson.
4. Taken collectively, Wilson is surrounded by good people who want to see him succeed and who are willing to help him as needed. I particularly noted the evidence the Friend and Mentor gave about their disdain for alcohol abuse and am satisfied they will be quick to notice and challenge Wilson if he returns to drinking.
5. While Brito's recent knowledge of Wilson was limited, I accept his evidence that anyone is welcome to return to REMAR. Whether or not one considers that the best place for AOD treatment, it is clear that Wilson associates his path to sobriety with REMAR and I am satisfied that he will call on that support if needed.
6. I find Wilson is well supported now and will be into the future, such that should he face challenges, he has people to talk with who will assist him to avoid relapsing into alcohol abuse.

The time that has passed and the likelihood of a relapse of the Alcohol Use Disorder

1. The Secretary raised a concern that Cummins' Reports had not specifically explained the opinion that Wilson was unlikely to relapse and whether there was any assessment tool used or available. I accept that is a question that could not be asked of Cummins but note that Cummins did, in the positive, identify the factors that had supported Wilson's sobriety. Those were his past involvement with rehabilitation treatment, his family and other supports, employment and stable housing. My assessment of Cummins' opinion was that, while those are in place, Wilson is unlikely to relapse.
2. On that basis and having regard to the findings above, I find that Wilson is unlikely to relapse into alcohol abuse and the personal and other consequences that would bring.
3. As to the time that has passed, the parties referred me to cases where there had been shorter or longer periods of abstinence. Those were of limited assistance because there can be fixed time frames where an individualised and evidence based assessment is required.
4. As to Wilson, it is approaching five years since he last offended and approaching four years since he was subject to supervision by the state. While nearly four years of sobriety is small compared to Wilson's long abuse of alcohol, I consider it to be very significant. That is because, for some 30 years his default was to use alcohol near daily and for it to be the driving force in his life. The contrast between that and his period without any alcohol is extremely favourable to him, including where his Alcohol Use Disorder is in remission.
5. I give weight to Cummins' professional expert opinion on the matter which had regard to his past treatment and referred to Wilson's management strategies (which meant he could attend a hotel without drinking alcohol) and his reliance on his close friends who he can use as confidants and mentors.
6. As noted earlier, I regard the evidence as to how Wilson managed the events at VicRoads and in hospital as positive. I was satisfied from the evidence that on both occasions Wilson was distressed by what occurred and, in the moment, was not coping. Not only did he not use alcohol to manage but he did not direct violence towards others. Instead, he gathered himself with the support of the Mentor.
7. I also give weight to Wilson's personal commitment to not returning to alcohol abuse. That personal commitment, underpinned by his faith, has led to him being sober for nearly four years now. I accept his Sister's well based opinion that, if he was going to relapse by now, he would have.
8. While accepting that Wilson has not laid out a comprehensive plan for ensuring he is not triggered to use alcohol again, I am satisfied his focus is on maintaining his new life which excludes all alcohol. It seemed to me his personal commitment and his happiness at his new life meant that triggers such as depression and anxiety beyond the everyday would not arise or would not trouble him. Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that, if Wilson faces challenges, he can rely on his strong desire not to go back, the fact that for nearly four years he has avoided alcohol use and, failing those, he will call on his strong and dependable support network.

1. For the above reasons, I find that Wilson presents a minimal risk of abusing alcohol in future such that he would again offend using violence towards others. In light of his offending history, even if that were to occur, I find there is negligible to no risk any such violence would be directed at children given there has never been any offending directed at children or where they were present.

Any information given by Wilson in or in relation to the application - section 63(1)(i)

1. I have summarised above Wilson's evidence about his past, plans for the future and attitudes towards his past offending and use of alcohol. I have also referred to the reasons why he has applied for a WWC Clearance. I have referred to the references and witnesses' evidence above.

Submissions on the information provided by Wilson

1. Wilson's solicitor pointed to the evidence summarised above to submit that it is a sufficient and clear basis to show that Wilson has changed his life and has several forms of support in the event that he faces future challenges. Reliance was placed on:
   • His personal commitment to complete abstinence and his use of prayer as a strategy to manage on a daily basis;
   • How he managed the VicRoads' events, including how he called on the Mentor to assist him;
   • His near daily contact with the Sister as a source of support and engagement;
   • His membership of the Church and what that brought: a group of people to rely on; and
   • His monthly or so visits to REMAR to support himself and offer it to others.

1. After referring to the then available references from the Team Leader, the Employer and the Pastor, the Secretary's Written Submissions noted the supports Wilson had in place through the Employer and the Church. Concern was expressed about whether the Employer or Pastor had 'full knowledge' of Wilson's entire criminal history and the extent of his alcohol and drug use.
2. They then noted that Wilson's interactions with the relevant supports only began once he had completed detoxification and during his period of sobriety and so 'they would not have been witness to any of the concerning behaviour, or his triggers'. It was suggested that, at his current stage in recovery, the three character references 'should only be attributed limited weight'.

1. In response to the above submission, at the hearing, Wilson's solicitor noted that he had removed himself from almost all the people who knew him while he was abusing alcohol and so, as he was not in contact with them, he could not call them to give evidence.
2. She noted, though, that the Sister and Niece had known him before and now regarded him as a changed person.

Findings on the other information provided by Wilson

1. I am satisfied that the references from the ARC Case Manager and Team Leader demonstrate that, while engaged with ARC, Wilson applied himself to meeting the requirements and that assisted him to complete the 2020 CCO and also embed new sober habits in his life.
2. I accept that the other referees had varying amounts of knowledge of Wilson's prior offending and that may limit their capacity to assess the degree of change in him and, theoretically, to detect concerning changes in behaviour.
3. However, none of that detracts from the glowing references and evidence provided as to the person they know now. While the referees came from Wilson's connection with the Church, that did not limit their observations to matters related to his religiosity. What was striking is that they spoke about his character traits and attitudes to others. They remarked on his kindness and willingness to help whenever it was needed. They had no reservations about Wilson engaging with their own children or grandchildren or with children and young people at the Church.
4. While the Secretary did not consider the events at VicRoads and in hospital represented true tests of Wilson's resolve and capacity to manage without alcohol, I disagree. I understood Wilson was extremely disappointed that the process for re-gaining his driver's licence would be more complex than expected. He showed the skills he had developed within himself to not chose alcohol and sought support from a trusted friend. As to the hospital, it is of course concerning that hospital staff felt it was necessary to call police because of Wilson's behaviour. What was plain was that the situation was quickly diffused and Wilson was then able to manage the fear he was experiencing about his health in a more measured and less disruptive way. That is what one would hope for in a person who had a history of using alcohol and lashing out when things became difficult.
5. I also considered the events involving his former boss very significant. Despite apparently being the victim of workplace bulling and a physical attack, Wilson did not respond in kind or turn to alcohol. He resigned, he talked it through with the Employer and made a report to police. All the actions of someone well able to control their emotions and responses when under very significant pressure.
6. The evidence from the Sister was powerful. When Wilson became too much for her to manage in a way that protected the wellbeing of her family, the Sister obtained an Intervention Order and effectively cut him off, even though he was homeless. The fact that she now sees him every day or so and regards him as trustworthy changed person speaks volumes about the difference in him.
7. Similarly, the Niece had problems with Wilson at a low point in his behaviour and is now happy to spend time with him. She has always felt safe from harm but now sees him as changed person who can offer helpful advice.

Any other matter that the Tribunal (on review) considers relevant to the application - section 63(1)(j)

1. Under this heading, the Secretary's Written Submissions referred to Wilson's:
   • Other offending;
   • Intervention Order matters;
   • Insight; and
   • History including regarding his rehabilitation and sobriety, current supports and involvement with MBC Programs.
2. I have referred to the evidence about each of those items above and have had regard to them (and the Secretary's submissions on each) below when assessing the future risk Wilson might pose.

1. When making an assessment under section 107(1) of the WSA, regard is to be had to whether an applicant poses an 'unjustifiable risk to the safety of children'.
2. In BHB v Secretary to the Department of Justice[87] the Tribunal said:

It is . . . not simply a matter of looking at each of the elements . . . and adding up those which are positive, and subtracting those that are negative. The whole of the evidence must satisfy [the Tribunal] that the giving of a notice to [the applicant] would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of any children placed in [their] care. In weighing up this evidence, it is important not to focus solely on the present personal circumstances of an applicant, or the characteristics of child-related work in which an applicant wishes to engage, as once the assessment is issued, it is effective for any child related work of any description in which the applicant might be engaged in the future.

1. In PQR v Secretary, Department of Justice and Regulation (No 2)[88] (PQR), Bell J said:

. . . the Act does not implement a system for screening persons engaging or intending to engage in child-related work by reference to a personal character or like test. Likewise, the issue for determination is not whether an applicant should be prevented from working with children by way of further detriment or penalty for having been charged with or found guilty or convicted of an offence. While the criminal antecedents of the applicant, as well as his rehabilitation, may be relevant to the application of the statutory criteria . . . the primary function of the Secretary and VCAT is one of risk assessment.

1. Relevant to each step in the consideration is the paramount consideration which is the protection of children from sexual or physical harm.
2. In making my assessment I have had in mind Wilson's wish to work further with the Employer as well as his interest in voluntary work (or a more formal position) in the Church. I have also been aware that, once a WWC Clearance is given, the holder may, subject to other requirements for the relevant work or role, engage in any child related work.
3. For the reasons given in respect of the particular nature of the risk Wilson might present to children, which is predicated on him abusing alcohol, after considering the factors in section 63(1) of the WSA, I am satisfied that giving the clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

The 'reasonable person test' - section 107(2)(a)

1. The Secretary referred me to the well understood law concerning the reasonable person test, including VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice, in which Judge Macnamara described the reasonable person test as follows:[89]

The reasonable person would, in reaching his or her conclusions, acquaint himself or herself with all of the matters that have been placed before me, giving an applicant ... a right to be heard, as well as considering the material gathered by the Secretary. 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 in some over optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.

1. It is well understood that the reasonable person test is an objective one, which relies on a reasonable person having knowledge of all facts and surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal has found it significant that this section requires a reasonable person to allow contact not just with a child, but with the person's own child. It has remarked that because 'as a matter of human nature people are more cautious and concerned about their own child, than about others' children' the test is a more onerous one.[90]
2. In JGF v Secretary to the Department of Justice[91] (JGF) Judge Macnamara:

A reasonable person would be acquainted with the truism I mentioned a few moments ago that there are no risk free encounters in human life.

1. Wilson's Written Submissions[92] referred to Wilson's past alcohol use and offending being in the past. They pointed to Wilson's involvement with the Employer's business and family.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions[93] referred to a case where there had been an established period of rehabilitation of 18 months.[94] The Submissions then said:

Given [Wilson's] significant history with alcohol and relapse resulting in offending in 2020, [the Secretary] submits that the current period of rehabilitation is not sufficient against a significant period of substance abuse from as young as 16 years of age.

1. The Secretary pointed to the decision (involving a different person) of Wilson v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation,[95] submitting there is further risk that should Wilson relapse, 'the possibility of recidivism of the offending behaviour is also likely increased'. It was submitted that a reasonable person (parent) apprised of all the circumstances would not allow Wilson to have direct contact with their child whilst engaging in child-related work.

1. I adopt the findings made above as to:
   • All of Wilson's offending being confined to when he was intoxicated;
   • The fact none of that offending has ever been directed at involving harm to children;
   • His previously chaotic life caused by his abuse of alcohol and involving homelessness and precarious employment at time and his current stability;
   • His engagement with rehabilitation services, mainstream and religious based, and his personal commitment to sobriety and to never 'going back';
   • The strong support network around him led by his very clear-eyed Sister and his Church community, with particular reference to the Employer, the Mentor and the Pastor;
   • Cummins' opinion that Wilson's Alcohol Use Disorder is in sustained remission, that there is minimal risk of relapse and his opinion that no further treatment is required at this time; and
   • Cummins' opinion that Wilson has no mental health condition.
2. The reasonable person (parent) the subject of section 107(2)(a) of the WSA would be aware of those findings and the background to them.
3. They would take note of the fact none of the Sister, the Employer, the Mentor, the Friend or the Pastor, all of whom are acutely aware of the importance of the protection of children, had any concerns about Wilson being involved with their own children and/or grandchildren. In particular, those with responsibility in the Church and the Employer gave evidence that Wilson was in no different position to any other person wishing to volunteer or work with children.
4. Noting the significant life experience each of those people have, the reasonable person (parent) would give their informed views significant weight.
5. In the case of the Sister, those views have been developed over 30 or more years and come from seeing Wilson at his lowest ebb, over his period of recovery and his current period of stability.
6. For the Employer, his views were formed after careful reading of the Secretary's decision and checking for any offending or harm caused by children before offering his support for this application. His opinions have been formed from providing accommodation and a family environment for Wilson. His opinions are well grounded in actual knowledge in the context of caution with his own and other children.
7. The next question is whether a reasonable person would conclude that it is too soon to have the requisite degree of confidence in Wilson. I have concluded that Wilson has used the more than the nearly four and a half years that have passed since the last offending well to address his use of alcohol and find the stability which has been lacking for the preceding around 30. Taken together with the absence of any offending against children and the only offending being while intoxicated, I am satisfied that the reasonable person (parent) would allow their child to have direct contact with Wilson while he was engaged in any type of child-related work.

The 'any type of child-related work' and the 'unjustifiable risk' test - section 107(2)(b)

1. Wilson's Written Submissions[96] referred me to OUX v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation,[97] (OUX) and the following:

The Tribunal, however, need not be satisfied that there is no risk. Indeed, [a WWC Clearance] may be given to OUX even if the Tribunal is satisfied that doing so poses a risk to the safety of children, provided that the Tribunal is satisfied that such risk is not an unjustifiable risk.

1. The submissions said that, given the past offending all occurred in the context of alcohol consumption and never involved children, now that Wilson has been sober for more than four years and remains connected to REMAR and his Church, it is submitted that there is no unjustifiable risk.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions[98] also referred me to the above statement from OUX. They added that there is considerable overlap between this test and section 63(1)(h) consideration of the likelihood of future threat to a child caused. As a result, it is accepted that this test is highly unlikely to be determinative.
2. My attention was drawn to the fact that Wilson could engage in any type of child related work, 'including work where the interactions with children could involve high conflict situations'. At the hearing, it was suggested that Wilson had not had experience dealing with the particular challenges managing children can bring.
3. The Secretary referred to the Tribunal's previous statements to the effect that it must proceed 'cautiously and conservatively' when considering this test, on the basis of the paramount consideration.[99]
4. It was submitted that, on the available materials, there was not enough to support that Wilson would not pose an unjustifiable risk to children.

1. Given the findings I made under section 107(1) and section 63(1)(h), in particular, I am satisfied that, if Wilson were to engage in the child-related work he plans with the Employer's business or in a voluntary or other capacity at the Church, he would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
2. I make that finding on the basis that, while there might be a risk of relapse in respect of alcohol, that is a very low risk which may be justified in all of the circumstances discussed in these Reasons including within the context of Wilson's past offending and the dramatic and, in my view, entrenched changes he has made in his life.

1. In Secretary to the Department of Justice & Regulation v McIntyre, Garde J confirmed the importance of the paramount consideration and its application to the public interest test, saying:[100]

The paramount consideration is always of the highest importance when considering and applying the public interest test. While the notion of the public interest is broad, and it is not appropriate to seek to define the boundaries of the public interest test, the paramount consideration - the protection of children from sexual and physical harm - is at the very core of the public interest test.

1. I was mindful that Wilson's wishes for future employment and volunteering are secondary to the paramount consideration.
2. The Secretary's Written Submissions noted the following matters are often considered under this part of the WSA:[101]

(a) Evidence that is both favourable and adverse to the applicant may overlap with considerations relevant to the 'unjustifiable risk' factor;

(b) Where the Tribunal could not find that an individual satisfied the section 63 factors, it would be difficult to envisage how it could then find that it was in the public interest to give an assessment notice; and

(c) Evidence that an applicant is dishonest, or suffering from a serious mental illness, or had problems with drugs or alcohol, can be taken into account adversely under this test, while evidence that an applicant has skills that could benefit children or that they are a positive role model for children can be taken into account in favour of an applicant.

1. Wilson's Written Submissions[102] reiterated the fact that Wilson has never posed a risk to children, having never engaged in sexual or physical harm to a child.
2. They referred to NJL v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation, where the Tribunal found that it was 'in the public interest for rehabilitated individuals to re-engage fully in the community when they no longer pose a risk to children'.[103]
3. The Submissions said that, directing the issue of a WWC Clearance would allow Wilson 'to further engage in meaningful employment, working with children in addition to adults, teaching them outdoor activities such as surfing'. Further they noted that Wilson hopes to be able to speak to at risk youth at church about the consequences of addiction and bad choices.

1. The Secretary's Written Submissions[104] stated that the public interest in Wilson being permitted to work in his desired field must be balanced against 'the risks he would pose to children in light of the history of violence offending and alcoholism'. Reference was made to Wilson's period of sobriety as being 'relatively recent given the backdrop of alcohol abuse from a young age'.
2. They further submitted that Wilson had not demonstrated that he possesses any specific skills or qualifications directly related to child-related work and the capacity in which he would be working was said to be unclear.

(a) One adverse matter for Wilson is the period of time he has been sober as compared to the around 30 years he had been using alcohol and, in that context, engaging in serious and violent offending against adults, including his mother. The other is the fact Intervention Orders were obtained to protect his family members from his drunkenness and associated noise and trouble. For the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that the past close to four years of sobriety is significant against that back drop rather than inadequate. Where his Alcohol Use Disorder is in sustained remission and he has never offended against a child, those circumstances and the support he has to maintain his current circumstances falls in his favour;

(b) As I have found that the section 63(1) factors lead to a favourable conclusion under section 107(1) of the WSA, that suggests giving a WWC Clearance would be in the public interest. That is because there is a public interest in people who can be relied on to be safe with children engaging in work they are suitable for and have an interest in. On the evidence of the Employer and Pastor, I am satisfied that Wilson has the skills and temperament to undertake work in the outdoor education programs and volunteer at the Church; and

(c) For the reasons given above, I do not consider Wilson's past alcohol use to be a barrier to him making good use of his life experience to benefit young people and provide a demonstration that there are ways to recover from dire circumstances and past unacceptable conduct.

1. It was apparent from the evidence Wilson gave that he wants to make good for his past and be a positive contributor to society, especially for others who are struggling. That is a commendable aim and is to be supported where I have found there is a negligible to nil likelihood he would harm a child and he does not present an unjustifiable risk of causing harm to children he may work with in future.

[1] In these Reasons definitions are shown through the bolding of names or terms. Italics are used to define cases. I have referred to witnesses, other than the applicant, by reference to descriptors to preserve some privacy for them but no pseudonym or suppression orders are in place.

[4] Based on the assessment tools referred to in his two reports dated 28 March 2024 and 4 June 2025.

[11] That led to a damage to property charge.

[14] TB 19-20 - the extract has been edited consistently with the edits on the 2020 Statement.

[27] Secretary's Written Submissions [102]

[28] Wilson's Written Submissions dated 22 April 2025, [16]-[20].

[29] Secretary's Written Submissions [24]-[28] and [100]-[103].

1. [30] Referring to TVQ v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2019] VCAT 1603 [60].

[31] Secretary's Written Submissions [29].

[45] Confirmed in a file note - TB 190.

[48] First Cummins' Report [39] and [47].

[50] I note that there was no suggestion that Wilson was not paid for his work with the Employer and so I have proceeded on the basis that the reference to 'voluntary' work in that context was made in error.

[53] Counselling was referred to in Corrections' Case Notes, for example TB 813.

[55] See for example ACR preliminary assessment report TB 160.

[56] First Cummins' Report [30], [52]-[57] and [67].

[59] First Cummins' Report [44]-[46].

[60] First Cummins' Report [48]-[49].

[61] Second Cummins' Report [43] and [63].

[62] First Cummins Report [41]-[42] and [58].

[67] Secretary's Written Submissions [112].

[75] Wilson's Written Submissions [33]-[34].

[76] [2022] VCAT 629 [15]-[16], [121]-[125] and [143]-[144].

[77] IVZ v Secretary to the Department of Justice Regulation [2017] VCAT 389.

[78] Secretary's Written Submissions [40]-[41], footnotes and citations omitted.

[79] Secretary's Written Submissions [43]-[46], footnotes omitted

[80] Secretary's Written Submissions [47]-[49].

[81] Per Kyrou J in Maleckas v Secretary, Department of Justice [2011] VSC 227 (Maleckas) at [72].

[82] Secretary's Written Submissions [85].

[83] Wilson's Written Submissions [19].

[84] See Cummins' First Report [54] and Cummins' Second Report [51].

[85] Secretary's Written Submissions [104]-[109].

[87] [2008] VCAT 1946 [8], referred to by Bell J in ZZ v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 [166].

[88] [2017] VSC 514 per Bell J [24].

[89] [2013] VCAT 789 [36].

[90] PQR; and see also OYJ v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation [2019] VCAT 33 [94].

[91] [2013] VCAT 1728 [25].

[92] Wilson's Written Submissions [38]-[42].

[93] Secretary's Written Submissions [116]-[123].

[94] GYI v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation [2017] VCAT 331 [95].

[95] [2017] VCAT 249 [75]-[77].

[96] Wilson's Written Submissions [43]-[44].

[97] [2017] VCAT 1809 [35]-[36].

[98] Secretary's Written Submissions [124]-[128].

[99] Referring to AXP v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2019] VCAT 710 [99], cited in AQD v Secretary to the Department of Government Services [2024] VCAT 568 [125].

[100] [2019] VSC 105 [83].

[101] Secretary's Written Submissions [131], footnotes omitted.

[102] Wilson's Written Submissions [45]-[48].

[103] [2016] VCAT 749 [60].

[104] Secretary's Written Submissions [129]-[134].