VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Administrative DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	
vcat reference No Z988/2023	
CATCHWORDS	
Review and Regulation List – Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic), sections 63 and 107 – decade of serious offending, including violence - multiple prison sentences served – history of abuse of alcohol and illicit substances – applicant presents as reformed and living as a changed person – whether sufficient time has passed since the applicant completed his last sentence and community corrections order.	

APPLICANT	Rhykah Wilson 	
RESPONDENT	Secretary to the Department of Government Services 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
HEARING TYPE	Zoom hearing 	
BEFORE	A. Dea, Senior Member 	
DATE OF HEARING	28 November 2024 	
DATE OF ORDER and reasons 	19 December 2024	
CITATION	Wilson v Secretary to the Department of Government Services (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1203	
Orders
1	The principal registrar is directed to amend the register so as to correct the spelling of the applicant’s first name to ‘Rhykah’. 
2	Under section 51(2)(a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the respondent’s 27 October 2023 decision to give the applicant a WWC Exclusion is affirmed. 

A Dea
Senior Member 	
	
APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	In person 	
For Respondent	Ms S Pathan, counsel	

Reasons
1	Rhykah Wilson has applied to the Tribunal to review a decision made by the Secretary to the Department of Government Services on 27 October 2023, under the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) (WSA).
2	The decision was to refuse to give Wilson a WWC Clearance which would have allowed him to undertake any work which involved direct contact with children.  The Secretary decided to refuse the application for a WWC Clearance after considering Wilson’s criminal history, information he provided to the Secretary and the law as contained in the WSA. 
3	Wilson’s criminal history is lengthy, spanning the period 2010 to 2019 when he was aged between 17 and 30 years old.  The criminal offences are discussed later in these Reasons but, for now, I record they include:
(a)	On 15 March 2010, Wilson being found guilty of possessing a prohibited weapon (two charges), assaulting police, driving whilst disqualified and recklessly causing injury.  The offences were committed on 6 December 2008.  No convictions were recorded and he was sentenced to a good behaviour bond, required to attend the ‘cool heads’ program in Shepparton, and donate $100 to the Shepparton Emergency Service (the 2008 Offending); 
(b)	On 14 November 2017, Wilson being found guilty of making a threat to kill, making a threat to inflict serious injury, making a threat to destroy property, breaching conditions of parole and possessing a drug of dependence.  The offences were committed on 30 September 2017.  He was convicted and fined an aggregate $2,000 (the 2017 Offending); and 
(c)	On 10 May 2022, Wilson being found guilty of intentionally causing injury and committing an indictable offence while on bail.  The offences were committed on 4 May 2019.  He was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 17 months, followed by a Community Corrections Order (CCO) for nine months commencing upon completion of his term of imprisonment.  As Wilson had already served 540 days in pre-sentence detention, the custodial component of his sentence was reckoned as having been served as at the date he was sentenced (the 2019 Offending).
4	Certain of the above offences mean that Wilson’s application for a WWC Clearance is regarded as ‘Category B’ for the purposes of the WSA and is to be considered by the Tribunal under section 107. 
5	At the time he was sentenced in May 2022, after pleading guilty to the two offences referred to in paragraph (c) above, the County Court Sentencing Judge spoke of Wilson in extremely positive terms in the written judgment (County Court Decision).  The positive comments included describing Wilson as having demonstrated ‘a capacity for and a commitment to reform on bail’ and making ‘remarkable progress’ while on bail.  Those conclusions influenced the sentence imposed.
6	Since being released from prison in April 2021, Wilson has not offended again in any way.  He completed the CCO imposed as part of his sentence for the 2019 Offending.
7	Wilson has been employed as an apprentice carpenter and is due to complete the final subjects and practical requirements soon.  He provided a very supportive reference from his employer who, while not referring specifically to the offending, indicated he was aware of Wilson’s criminal history.  Wilson also relied on other references I refer to later in these Reasons.
8	Wilson has been in a committed relationship for around two years.  He has been living with his partner for around 18 months.  He is step-father to children aged 19 and 14.  He and his partner very recently had their first child together.  Wilson spoke of his partner’s moral code and no nonsense approach.  He said she is honest and someone who will not put up with rubbish.  He wants to be a better person because of her.
9	With the criminal proceedings complete, the Tribunal’s task is to assess Wilson against the tests contained in section 107 of the WSA.  The Tribunal:
(a)	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) of the WSA (under section 107(1)); and 
(b)	In considering unjustifiable risk, must be satisfied that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with Wilson while he was engaged in any type of child-related work (under section 107(2)(a)); and 
(c)	In considering unjustifiable risk, must be satisfied that Wilson’s engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children (under section 107(2)(b)); and 
(d)	Must refuse to give a WWC Clearance unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the WWC Clearance (under section 107(3)). 
10	The Tribunal makes its assessment in light of the paramount consideration under the WSA, namely the protection of children from sexual or physical harm (under section 11).
11	After hearing evidence from Wilson, considering the contents of the parties’ joint Tribunal Book (TB) and their submissions, I have concluded that, after applying the criteria under the WSA, it is appropriate to affirm the Secretary’s decision to give Wilson a WWC Exclusion.
Wilson’s offending 
Wilson’s overall evidence regarding his past offending
12	At the hearing, Wilson spoke of the period when he was aged 20 to around 27/28 as a time when he was young, thought he was ‘invincible’ and ‘young and dumb’.  
13	He described growing up believing that he had to be strong.  He referred to wanting to ‘make a name for himself’.  He referred to trying to be a ‘bad guy’.  Wilson was the youngest of the group he spent time with and he looked up to the others.  He needed to do something to be ‘cool’.  In cross-examination, Wilson referred to trying to be ‘a big shot’ and being egged on.
14	In order to impress those around him, Wilson believed he needed to be physically aggressive and, later, use illicit drugs.  He became addicted to methylamphetamine (also known as ‘ice’) and, in order to support his habit, he became involved in drug trafficking.  He stated that the alternative was to engage in other crime (presumably theft and the like) to get money to buy drugs.
15	He looked back at his behaviour at that time as ‘stupid and wasteful’.  He said it had taken until ‘now’ (that is, late November 2024) to realise how stupid it all was.  He said that ‘bad guy’ persona was not who he was meant to be.  
16	In relation to the time he was in prison in 2013/2014 and his further offending in 2016 (and I understood in 2019), Wilson said he had wanted to change but he forgot what he had learnt and did not think things through.  He said he had always been like that.
17	He referred to his past offending as ‘disgraceful’.  He said, back then, it was cool to say you had been to prison but that he was now ashamed and embarrassed.  He said it was a ‘waste of life’ and a ‘stupid way to act’.  He said he had put his mother through hell.
18	In cross-examination, Wilson was asked how he would describe the totality of his decade of offending.  Wilson described it as ‘very serious’ and described the 2019 Offending as ‘extremely serious’ and ‘serious violent offending’.  Later in cross-examination, Wilson described being reactive and not thinking things through.  He again referred to all he had done as being disgraceful.  He agreed that, as described by the Judge, as at 2019, he had engaged in ‘a decade of serious offending’. 
19	In September 2022, Wilson reported to Corrections Victoria officers that ‘friends, associates, and culture, tradition, and family influenced his offending behaviour’, that he has ‘always wanted to be vicious, because his uncle was a professional boxer, and his cousin is in prison … [but] that deep down he is not a vicious person’.  When asked about the wish to be ‘vicious’ in cross-examination, Wilson described being raised to deal with a person who did something wrong to him by making sure they did not do it again.  I understood that meant he used aggression and violence to dominate and, as needed, frighten the other person.  
20	Wilson referred to sessions with a psychologist while subject to the CCO as having helped him to develop an understanding of the relationship between the above attitudes in his upbringing and what he described as the pointless response he displayed.  He described how a fight which follows from a provocation is ‘pointless’ as one person gets hurt and the other gets into trouble.  
21	I have set out below in chronological order all of Wilson’s past offending, including the Category B offending and summarised the evidence he gave at the hearing about the individual offending. 
The 2008 Offending
22	Police described the events of 6 December 2008 as follows:
The victim spoke to two males on the ramp to a surf club.  Discussion took place about drugs back at the victim’s apartment at a resort.  They started walking back and became separated.  The victim then called his friends who were at the hotel.  When they came outside, they all approached the resort entrance.  They then saw one of the males spoken to earlier standing near the entrance.
As they approached him, he produced a steel pipe from a backpack and struck the victim to back of the head.  A scuffle took place and security guards broke up the fight and took possession of the steel pipe.  The victim and his friends then walked off and were about to enter the resort when the victim was again attacked by 3 males who proceeded to bash him until he was unconscious.  The victim suffered bad bruising to his left eye area as a result and was covered in blood.
Please note that this is the only available information surrounding the circumstance of offending. The exact actions of [Wilson] cannot be determined in this matter.
23	The charges (see [3(a)] above) were heard in the Children’s Court of Victoria (as Wilson was 17 years old when the offences were committed) and Wilson was released upon entering a 12-month Good Behaviour Bond in the amount of $250, without conviction.  On 6 December 2010, the matter was dismissed as Wilson had complied with his good behaviour undertaking
24	The precise circumstances of the offending and Wilson’s involvement was unclear, however Wilson has said in the past that the offence involved him attending schoolies at Lorne, where his ‘mates got jumped by a group of guys so we went looking for them for some retribution’.  
25	At the hearing before me, Wilson disputed the suggestion in the police materials that three of his group bashed the victim.  His memory was ‘a bit hazy’ but he recalled fighting one guy and then there were five to 10 people fighting (including some of the victim’s mates).  Wilson’s evidence was that he ended up ‘as bad as him’, that is as badly injured as the victim. 
26	As to the assaulting police and resisting arrest charges, at the hearing, he said the circumstances were ‘obviously exaggerated a lot’.  He said when the police were arresting him he ‘fought back’ but did not swing a punch or even push back.  He indicated he was reacting instinctively rather than actively resisting. 
27	In cross-examination, Wilson was referred to the description of the injuries the victim suffered.  He agreed the victim was badly injured but maintained the summary did not reflect all that happened, including the fact the victim had friends with him and the injuries they inflicted on Wilson.  On further questioning Wilson agreed he fought with the victim and that he caused the victim some injury but ‘he caused more injury to me’.  He went on to say that he was not saying he was defending himself and that the victim was ‘winning’ against him.  Wilson agreed alcohol was involved in the incident but denied he had used drugs.  
Offending in the period 2010 to 2015/2016 
28	On 23 May 2011, Wilson was found guilty of driving whilst disqualified and sentenced to one month imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.  After Wilson was found driving while disqualified, the period of suspension was extended by 12 months (on 7 February 2012).  My understanding was that the offending was engaged in during 2010 or 2011.  
29	At the hearing, Wilson conceded he had a ‘bad driving record’.  He referred to him and his girlfriend fighting a lot, him being ‘off the rails’ and driving when he should not.  He referred to those as ‘silly things’.
30	On 15 October 2012, Wilson was found guilty of possessing a dangerous article in a public place and was convicted.  He was fined $500 and forfeiture orders were made.
31	At the hearing, Wilson stated that he was in a car which was pulled over and the police found a baseball bat or similar and a ‘pen pistol’.
32	On 14 March 2013, Wilson was found guilty of a range of offences including possession of weapons including handguns, driving offences, drug possession, and dealing with suspected proceeds of crime.  He was sentenced to his first term of imprisonment of one month (aggregate), as well as to a CCO for 10 months.  
33	At the hearing, Wilson agreed the above facts were accurate but said the ‘weapon’ was the pen pistol mentioned earlier.  He said he was using ice at the time.
34	On 3 October 2013, Wilson was found guilty of various offences including contravening the above CCO, driving offences, breaching an alcohol interlock condition, possession of methylamphetamines, possessing prohibited weapons, using a firearm as a prohibited person, and failing to answer bail.  He was sentenced to a total term of 18 months’ imprisonment with a nine month non-parole period.  
35	At the hearing Wilson did not have a complete recollection of the offending but stated that his lawyer ‘tricked’ him to plead guilty, having told Wilson he would get three to six months; he was imprisoned for 18 months.  
36	On 8 January 2014, Wilson was found guilty of additional similar offences to those in October 2013 and was sentenced to serve a further three month period of imprisonment concurrently with the sentence he was already serving at that time.  
37	On 6 September 2016, Wilson was found guilty of offences including trafficking methylamphetamine, dealing with suspected proceeds of crime, contravening a condition of bail and committing indictable offences while on bail.  He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months.  The offending was committed in April and May 2016.
38	At the hearing, Wilson gave evidence about what was happening in his life in around April and May 2016.  
39	After being released from prison after the 2013 offending (during which time he did not use drugs), Wilson remained drug free for about nine months.  That included time when he was around his old friends who were still using ice.  One of his friends suggested he use ice just once.  He did so and found himself back into addiction.  He said that, over time, the addiction became worse and, as the drug was very expensive, he started trafficking. 
40	The TB contained a Remand Summary which provided additional detail about the trafficking offences.  The Summary was prepared by police in support of its opposition to Wilson being granted bail.
41	The Summary described the police ‘major drug investigation’ which targeted 
a syndicate of persons responsible for the trafficking of methyl amphetamine (ice), mdma, ecstasy and cannabis within the North East of Victoria and encompassing the townships of Shepparton, Mooroopna, Kyabram, Echuca and surrounding areas.  It also involved in the trafficking into New South Wales into the townships of Corowa and Albury.
42	The main members of the syndicate were said to be ‘influential in controlling the prices and availability’ of methylamphetamine within the above regions.  One of those was said to have been ‘assisted greatly’ by Wilson who ‘would courier drugs and collect money’.
43	In February 2016, police intercepted a vehicle and Wilson was sitting in the front passenger side.  He was known to police investigators ‘through prior dealings’.  He was observed to have ‘a large bundle of cash’ sticking out of his pocket.  The Remand Summary then said:
[Wilson] was then requested to exit the vehicle by . . . who observed [Wilson] to be holding a bottle of ‘Galliano’.  Detectives immediately noticed that the cash was no longer in [Wilson’s pocket] as viewed . . . upon intercept.  A search of the vehicle then followed and located the large amount of cash that [Wilson] had hidden in the passenger door of the vehicle.  The total amount was later ascertained to be $10,470.
Also located to the side of the passenger seat was a ‘glad’ ‘snack’ branded sandwich bag with a rubber band around it, containing approximately one ounce (28 grams) of methyl amphetamine.  The bag was immediately adjacent to where [Wilson] was seated and was situated next to a second bottle of ‘Galliano’ identical to that [Wilson] was holding.  The estimated street value of this is believed to be between 10 and 15 Thousand dollars with approximate street use of 280 hits.
44	Police investigators later executed a search warrant at Wilson’s home and located the following in his bedroom:
•	An ‘MSM’ tub containing a crystal substance and powder.  That substance was said to commonly be used in the cutting down of methylamphetamine;
•	Two boxes of ‘Glad’ sandwich bags, identical to the bag located in the vehicle;
•	A Telstra box containing scales, a plastic tub and spoon with remnants of what appeared to be methylamphetamine scattered across the scales and within the box; 
•	A sock containing zip-lock bags which appeared to contain a small amount of methylamphetamine; 
•	A ‘Viagra’ type pill; and 
•	$10,700 cash.
45	Telephone intercepts between one of the syndicate leaders and Wilson recorded them ‘clearly’ discussing trafficking methylamphetamine between Melbourne and a regional centre.  Those calls ‘were occurring whilst [Wilson] was on bail to the rehab centre’.
46	I invited Wilson to make submissions about the above events.  He said he had a ‘big habit’ at the time and that he trafficked to support his habit.  He referred to being successful at it and it becoming bigger than he intended.  
47	I asked about the impacts of drug trafficking on the wider community including the harm that comes to drug users and their families, including children.  Wilson accepted that many people are affected but explained that, when he had a drug habit, he did not think about anyone or anything else.  
48	Wilson referred to the older members of his family who had always despised drugs and wanted him to stop using.  He said it had ‘taken this long’ and ‘this much jail’ to see he had needed to stop.
The 2017 Offending 
49	The 2017 Offending comprises charges of threats to kill and inflict serious injury.  The victim of these offences was Wilson’s former girlfriend of five years, from whom he had been separated for 12 months and who had a new boyfriend at the time.  The police summary of the events on 1 October 2017 said as follows:
At approximately 11:30 pm, the victim began receiving social media calls from [Wilson].  The victim refused to answer the first 2 calls before [Wilson] sent messages. He said, ‘I run (name of city withheld) you owe me $200 a week to keep me off ya backs.  You’re a dog, a slut. (New boyfriend’s name withheld) is a dog, a rat.’ [Wilson] called the victim.  Throughout the call, [Wilson] said, ‘I will kill your mother and your father.  I’ll burn your car, your little (vehicle description withheld)’.
The conversation continued here [Wilson] said ‘I’m gunna kill your mother and I’m gunna kill your father.  I couldn't give a fuck. I’ll stab you and (boyfriend’s name withheld).  Me and a couple of mates are gunna burn ya fuckin' car down.  Just so that we get things out of the way.
[Wilson] threatened to attend the victim's house at 6:30 in the morning.  [Wilson] then threatened to ‘stab the fuckin' dog in the throat.’  The conversation has resulted in the victim feeling scared for her and her parents welfare as well [as] for her property.  The victim feels fearful that [Wilson] will carry out the threats.  Police believe an intervention order is necessary to prevent future family violence and to ensure there is no property damage.
50	Wilson was on parole at the time of the 2017 Offending, after which the parole was cancelled and he was re-imprisoned.  
51	Wilson received a conviction and was fined an aggregate of $2,000 (for these offences, a threat to destroy property, breach of parole conditions and drug possession).
52	When discussing this offence with Corrections officers after his re-imprisonment, Wilson stated that he and the victim were ‘joking around’ at the end of the call in which he made the threats.  He also claimed to have no memory of the offending as he had consumed ‘four beers’ earlier in the day and he said that, due to his diabetes, any alcohol had a greater effect on his body.  Despite his claimed lack of memory of the incident, Wilson told police that the offences were not in his character and that he ‘wouldn’t say that’.  
53	At the hearing, Wilson stated that he was ‘very intoxicated’ on the relevant night and that ‘a lot went on’.  He stated that he was speaking to his former girlfriend’s new partner on her phone.  He suggested there was some joking around but he and the new partner started arguing.  He suggested that his former girlfriend must have started recording at that point.  He suggested that he was making threats more directed at the new partner than his former girlfriend.  He could not recall making threats directed towards the parents.
54	In cross-examination, Wilson accepted that, with the exception of a few words, what is set out above in [49]was largely correct.  
55	Wilson confirmed he could not recall making the threats against the parents.  When taken to the statement his former girlfriend made to police hours after the events, his response was that he could not say if he did or did not say what was alleged.  He said he did not make the threats about the parents and also that a person with him was ‘carrying on’ and saying stupid things.  He ultimately agreed that it was ‘possible’ he made those threats. 
56	As to the threats to the former girlfriend and her new partner, he accepted those were made.  
57	He stated that he did not know what he was doing or saying as he was intoxicated.  He stated that, at the time his parole was cancelled because of the 2017 Offending, he believed that he had not committed the offending but, when he saw the materials and went to court, he accepted he had done something wrong, that it was his fault although he could not recall exactly what he said. 
The 2019 Offending 
58	Wilson’s most recent offending occurred on 4 May 2019.  The details of the intentionally cause injury charges and conviction are detailed in the County Court Decision handed down on 10 May 2022 and include the following (I note that  ‘Scott’ was Wilson’s co-offender): 
The factual background is as follows.  Wilson and Scott were friends who lived in Shepparton.  In April 2019, now three years ago when each were in their late 20s, they were involved in the following acts of violence.  Wilson and the complainant Mr Kanter were known to each other and had had disputes and physical confrontations in the then recent past but none of these had been reported to the police.  Kanter lived in Shepparton.
During the early hours of Saturday 4 May 2019, Wilson and Scott were at the Tudor House Motor Inn with a friend of Scott’s, namely Megan Travaskis.  The co-accused walked into the gaming room of the Sherbourne Terrace Hotel before returning to the Motor Inn.  Scott then asked Travaskis to drive him and Wilson to meet with Kanter and she agreed to do so.  She drove both Scott and Wilson to Kanter’s home in her car.  En route, Scott made it clear that he and Wilson were intent on assaulting Kanter and threatened to harm Travaskis and her family if she did not help them.
Travaskis obliged and dropped them off at a vacant block of land near Kanter’s home.  There, they hid behind a fence. Travaskis collected Kanter from his home, drove him to the vacant block and parked her vehicle in the driveway.  As she did so, Wilson and Scott opened the front passenger door and began to assault Kanter as he was sitting in the car.  Travaskis fled.  Both punched Kanter repeatedly all over his body and Wilson said, ‘I told you I was going to get you.’
While they were both punching Kanter, Wilson used a pocketknife to stab Kanter to the left side of his chest and to his leg. Scott got into the driver’s seat of the vehicle and told Kanter to get out.
. . . 
Kanter got out of the vehicle.  Wilson followed Kanter a part of the way home and threatened to kill him if he went to the Police.  This is an uncharged act.  Kanter left a significant blood trail all the way to his home, approximately 400 metres.  When he arrived home, three of his friends were at the address.  The friends provided first aid and [a friend] called triple zero.
Police and ambulance members arrived a short time later and the victim was airlifted to The Royal Melbourne Hospital where he was stabilised and was found to have puncture wounds to the left side of his chest and his leg.  His wounds were at least 3 centimetres deep and he was estimated by ambulance members to have lost about a litre of blood.  He was discharged from hospital the following day, being 5 May 2019.
59	Wilson was arrested more than five months later.  He denied the allegations and stated that he did not know either his co-accused or the victim.  He was initially charged with armed robbery in addition to assault but those charges were not pursued.
60	In the County Court Decision, the Judge inferred that Wilson’s offending against the victim would have been ‘a terrifying and painful ordeal’.
61	Wilson was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and five months (which had already been served at the time of sentencing as pre-sentence detention), followed by a nine-month CCO with supervision and mental health treatment as conditions.
62	At the hearing, Wilson gave evidence that:
•	He never said a word to the woman mentioned in the summary and that he did not organise for ‘any of it’ to happen;
•	He was drinking and using drugs at the time and it happened in a ‘blink of an eye’; and 
•	He had a problem with the victim; several weeks before the above events, he was at the victim’s house and they got into an argument.  The victim was said to have hit Wilson several times with a baseball bat.
63	Wilson gave evidence about his later reactions to the offending.  He said it ‘scared the shit out of me’ because he realised that the victim could have died.  He said that, since then, there had been no further violence, including when he was in jail. However, as summarised below, there was some further violence in prison, although no charges were laid.
64	In cross-examination, Wilson was asked whether he agreed with the police summary of the offending.  He did, except for small things such as they were dropped at the co-accused cousin’s house and not at a vacant block and they were in the middle of the road rather than in a driveway.  He said he did not use a ‘pocket knife’ but rather a sharpened bottle opener. 
65	When asked why he made the denials noted above on his arrest, Wilson said he had no reason for doing so and that he should have said ‘no comment’.  Wilson stated that he had pleaded guilty once the charges were ‘lowered’ and had maintained that plea.
Other 2019 offending 
66	On 30 April 2020, Wilson was found guilty of theft and failing to answer bail.  He was fined $750 without conviction.  
67	On 9 November 2020, Wilson was found guilty of theft and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.  
68	As I understood it, the above offending was engaged in around the same time as the 2019 Offending (in May 2019).  The matters were dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court while Wilson was incarcerated.  Wilson’s evidence in cross-examination was that the charges related to ‘stuff’ with his former girlfriend.
Incidents in prison
69	As to violence in prison, Wilson thought there may have been one fight with a cell mate in around late 2019.  After being referred to materials about a fight he was involved in in March 2017, Wilson agreed that there had been such a fight.  
70	Wilson agreed that, while in prison in 2017, he had been fined for making home brew.  
71	There was mention of another fight in prison in around 2018.  Wilson could not recall all of the detail but thought it involved him being told the other prisoner intended to get him and he thought he would do it first.  He said the other prisoner was injured with something like a black eye but nothing more serious, like a broken arm.
72	July 2020 Corrections records referred to Wilson having had difficulty expressing his emotions ‘due to his family upbringing’ and, as a consequence he internalised ‘all his frustrations and emotions.  Wilson told the Corrections officer that the ‘only way to be free of his past’ was to start again in Melbourne, where ‘after many years of being taunted he was finally feeling free and his old self again’.  The officer recorded that Wilson needed to address ‘his inability to manage internal worries with his external behaviours’ and that, if not he ‘could find himself in trouble again’.  The officer concluded that Wilson had ‘excellent prospects for work and happiness if indeed he can put his past in order’.
73	The Secretary’s counsel drew Wilson’s attention to the fact that, around a month later, in August 2020, there was an incident where he was said to have ‘attempted threats to assault staff over not responding to staff direction’.  Wilson’s then case manager with Corrections asked Wilson about the incident and Wilson was recorded as saying that ‘everything was sweet’.  He was encouraged to ensure that he took directives from staff to prevent further incidents and told he needed to be respectful at all times.  Wilson was recorded as saying he would do so.  
74	At the hearing, Wilson’s evidence was that the incident might have occurred at a time when an Acting Governor of the prison was picking people up for a lot of things.  He thought that, on the relevant day, there was a line for medication, and he may have ‘stood up’ to the Governor.  He said he was ‘not stupid enough to threaten’ prison officers  and he suggested that the Governor wanted to ‘tip’ (remove) him from the particular prison.  He said some prison Governors were ‘power hungry’.  He thought he may have had a dispute with a prison officer but was confident he had made no threats.  He suggested that he may not have liked how the particular officer spoke to him and he gave ‘a bit back’.  Wilson noted that the particular prison took him back three months later and he was again placed with the same prison officers.   
Wilson’s conduct since April 2021
75	In April 2021, Wilson was released on bail and so he was out of prison for about a year before the County Court Decision was made.  He moved to Melbourne, away from his home town and the people he used to spend time with.  He said he did not want to ‘hang around criminals’.  He did not use drugs again.  
76	Wilson referred to not feeling the same as he used to be and how scared he was after the 2019 Offending, given he might have faced the possibility of 20 years in prison if the victim had died.  Once he moved, he did not know anyone in his neighbourhood except for a cousin.  He made a group of new friends, none of whom were criminals. 
Personal circumstances 
77	Wilson has been in an ongoing relationship with his partner since late 2022 but they met and were friends from around late 2021.  He moved in with her and her children around 18 months to two years ago.  Those children are now 19 and 14 and, as mentioned above, he and his partner have a young baby.  
78	Wilson is now the sole breadwinner in the house while his partner cares for the children.
79	Wilson was asked about the potential risk of him using drugs if he faced relationship challenges or breakdown given it appeared that had occurred in around 2016/2017.  Wilson said his then partner was different to him, being a homebody while he wanted to go out.  Boredom partly led to his drug use.  
80	Wilson’s evidence was that he and his partner had only had two or three fights in their time together and that other challenges would not lead to drug use.  He referred to the responsibilities he has to his baby and said that would stop him from doing anything bad, even if his relationship ‘went south’.  
81	In his closing submissions, Wilson described aggression as trumping logic and him being in a dysfunctional environment where he wanted to be loud and had to win arguments.  He said it took a long time to learn that reaction (and violence) was the wrong way to go.  He now uses logic as a way to deal with things.  He stated that he did not want to ‘stuff up’ his current circumstances and that ‘family trumps everything’. 
82	Wilson has always been and remains very close to his mother.  He described how she comes to visit every few weeks, especially since her grandchild has been born.  It was clear that Wilson understood the distress he had caused her over the years of his offending.
Employment 
83	As I understood it, soon after being released Wilson started working for a company which did ground engineering and underpinning.  That job took him to South Australia at times.  In about March 2022, he commenced the carpentry apprenticeship and is due to finish in March 2025. 
84	As to his current employment, Wilson explained that the fact he does not hold a WWC Clearance means he is not able to do work under a contract his employer holds with a local council.  Although that contract does not require him to do child-related work, the council requires all people who work at certain sites (such as its kindergartens) to hold a WWC Clearance.  Wilson said the fact he could not do that work caused himself and his employer inconvenience.  He added that, as he works with the relevant council officers regularly, they know him well and have no issues with him.  
85	Wilson produced a personal reference from his past employer (Referee 1) which, relevantly, said Wilson had worked with him doing maintenance work and helping relocate transportable homes.  Referee 1 also said he had known Wilson for most of his life.  Referee 1 said:
I am very proud to hear that since moving to Melbourne, and obtaining gainful employment, that there has been a maturing of his attitude towards family and working life.
I am sure [Wilson] will continue with this positive growth and attitude and I wish him well in his future endeavours.
86	While I may infer that Referee 1 was aware of Wilson’s offending, it was not expressed and, with Referee 1 not attending to give evidence, the extent of his knowledge could not be clarified.
87	Another employer reference was written by Wilson’s current employer (Referee 2).  Referee 2 is a builder who provides building and carpentry services (including maintenance) to local government.  The reference included the following (underlining in the original):
I have had the pleasure of knowing and employing [Wilson] for 2 years.  [Wilson] is a full-time carpentry apprentice at [my company] where he has grown and viewed as a valued and extremely trusted member of our team.
I have witnessed tremendous growth in [Wilson] over this time both personally and professionally, along with his skills and abilities, he has excelled in his current role that has seen him rise to a position of strong trust. [Wilson] has risen to the levels of being issued progressively to his personal possession [master keys] to local municipalities including all access ‘master fob swipe cards’.  These are only issued to senior members of our organisation for obvious security reasons and are tracked in real time.  
Our assessment over the last two years has deemed [Wilson] to have satisfied the security requirements over time further extending the trust and responsibilities placed upon him. - He has not let me down to date.
[Wilson] was open and upfront with me upon our interviewing process about his offending past and upon writing this reference for [Wilson] a defining recollection of my first meeting with him whilst conducting interviews for the position advertised has returned to my thoughts.  The duration I spent with [Wilson] for his initial interview was a full two hours longer than all other applicants.  The more [Wilson] opened up to me and exposed in truth his past and made clear the mistakes and poor decisions that he had made in the past and identified in contributing in leading [Wilson] astray did not seem to reflect or be present on the person who was sitting before me.
Despite [Wilson] revealing his prior behaviour I took some time to make a thorough in-depth decision about who would best fit our business and specific needs when servicing the types of environments we service.  Reflection saw me realise that [Wilson’s] honesty has resonated with me, and I believed at the time only later to be rewarded with confirmation that I had before me a young man hoping and putting himself out there for a chance whilst almost anticipating rejection.
[Wilson] is exceptionally level-headed during stressful situations and tackles problems with ease as he has grown within himself over the last two years.  A strong respect has grown for [Wilson] by his colleagues and cliental who praise him for his work ethic, skillset, polite & friendly nature to all government staff who have come to know him.
I give my strong recommendation for [Wilson] to obtain his [WWC Clearance].
88	I have proceeded on the basis that Referee 2 was aware of the nature of the 2019 Offending and may have been aware of other earlier offending.  However, as Referee 2 did not attend to give evidence, it was not possible to clarify the depth of his knowledge. It also meant I could not gain assistance to understand what he regarded as Wilson’s past ‘mistakes’ and what contributed to him being led ‘astray’.  Having said that, I accept he has placed trust in Wilson, observed him dealing with problems and he wishes to continue to employ Wilson based on his past performance.
89	Wilson also produced a reference from a colleague at his present workplace (Referee 3) who has known Wilson for around two years.  Referee 3 noted Wilson had shown ‘enormous growth’ personally and in his work role.  Referee 3 described Wilson as ‘exceptionally level-headed during stressful situations’ and as someone who ‘tackles any problem with thoughtfulness and ease’.  Wilson is described as someone who is strongly respected by colleagues and clients alike.  Referee 3 described Wilson as having ‘always displayed a high degree of integrity, responsibility and ambition, as attending education programs with diligence and as a ‘dependable team player’.  
90	Referee 3 did not mention Wilson’s offending and, as she did not attend the hearing, the completeness of her knowledge of that could not be ascertained.
Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) counselling and psychological interventions, assessments and treatment 
Corrections and other materials 
91	The Secretary’s written submissions summarised the TB materials in respect of Wilson’s past use of alcohol and other drugs.  The following draws from that summary and specific records in the TB. 
92	In 2013, Wilson told Corrections that he commenced daily drug use after he broke up with his girlfriend of two years.  Around that time, Wilson’s drug use was described by police as ‘a daily methyl amphetamine addiction estimated to be worth approximately $1000 to $2000 a week’. 
93	In March 2014 Wilson told Corrections that his habit was worth only approximately $150 per month and denied daily use.  In August 2014, Wilson described himself as ‘using amphetamines daily’ and that he had ‘no issues with excessive alcohol use’.  He described himself as having ‘not action[ed] his strategies for maintaining abstinence and has now learnt his lesson’.
94	In October 2016, Wilson reported to Corrections that he was using ice once or twice a week for the previous three years.  Other prison records suggested that Wilson was an ‘ice user’ who offended to support his habit.
95	In March 2017, an AOD counsellor recommended that Wilson be referred for counselling to assist in addressing issues related to his use of alcohol.  Those issues included:
•	Alternative coping strategies;
•	Relapse prevention techniques;
•	Impulse control;
•	Long term change ; and 
•	Engagement in activities ‘to alleviate boredom and secure employment in an attempt to lead a positive life’.
96	At that time the AOD counsellor noted there was no evidence Wilson presented any current risk to himself, children or others. 
97	In February 2017, Wilson commenced a 44-hour drug and alcohol program with Caraniche in February 2017.  Corrections records noted that, in March 2017, Wilson stated that he has ‘no interest whatsoever’ to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs as he did not believe he had a drug problem.  After completing the AOD  program in May 2017, Wilson was said to be able to ‘recognise his drug habits and triggers’.  A June 2017 assessment report described him as having ‘moderate to high insight regarding the link between his substance use and offending behaviour’ but ‘reduced insight regarding the underlying function of his illicit substance use’.
98	In May 2020, Wilson reported that he had ‘not used drugs since 2016 but previously used ice’.  Corrections records at that time showed that Wilson had been on the methadone program for around a month, due to buprenorphine usage.  The records showed that Wilson told Corrections that, while he had not used amphetamines since 2018, he had started using buprenorphine strips while in custody and developed an addiction. 
99	In April 2021 while on methadone for his buprenorphine addiction, Wilson reported he had not used any illicit drugs.  In April and again in September 2021, Wilson expressed a preference not to engage in AOD counselling as it might trigger cravings and to rather address mental health issues.
100	In mid-2022, Wilson reported that he had not used amphetamines since the 2019 offending.  At the same time, Corrections records rated his ‘alcohol/drug problem’ as ‘high’ on a risk/need profile.  At that time, Wilson denied that ‘meth’ made him angry but admitted the heavy consumption of alcohol did.  He also indicated that he did not ‘like the feeling of meth’ and so drank after using.
101	In September 2022, Wilson was reporting that he felt he was ‘less likely to abuse alcohol due to boredom’ if he is employed.
102	In January 2023, Wilson told Corrections that he felt he was a changed man.  He also told the case manager that he no longer indulges in binge drinking, ‘which always ended him getting himself into trouble’.  He reported he had cut down his alcohol use to five to six beers at one time and had not had ‘any troubled encounter’.
Evidence at the hearing 
103	In cross-examination, Wilson conceded he had been a regular ice user until around 2016.  He stated he had used ice in early 2019 but none since.
104	His evidence was that he now accepted that alcohol and drugs had been significant contributors to his offending and that the violence came from alcohol; he said he did not think there had been any violence without alcohol.
105	Wilson was asked about concerns he had expressed to a Corrections officer in 2021 about undertaking AOD counselling (see further below).  He referred to that counselling potentially causing him to have cravings for ice.  He explained that, for him, out of sight is out of mind and so he did not even want to talk about drug use because that would make him want to use.  He denied having any recent cravings for drugs.  He stated he preferred being sober to being high.
106	As to his alcohol use, Wilson described binge drinking in the past but stated he now limits himself to one or two drinks at most.  He said he did not feel the same after drinking anymore
107	His evidence was that after he was released from prison in April 2021 and was living in Melbourne, he had gone to the pub had drunk around five or six beers.  He might have had similar sessions once or twice a fortnight.  His further evidence was that, since moving to live with his partner, he might have a couple of beers after work about once a fortnight and about once a fortnight he has a drink with his partner.  He said while in the past alcohol made him loud, now it does the opposite and he no longer needs it or feels the same when consuming alcohol.
108	Wilson gave evidence that, since being released from prison, he had ‘been around drugs’ and been offered them but he had ‘no interest anymore’.
109	Wilson was asked if he was having any AOD treatment at present or attended AA or NA.  He said no.  He was asked about whether he may use alcohol or drugs if he was bored.  Wilson’s answer was that he is not bored; he works five days a week, is at home with his partner, his step children and his young baby.  He said he was ‘quiet now’. 
110	In cross-examination, Wilson was referred to a record which showed he told Corrections officers in around August 2018 that he had ‘grown up’.  The relevant record included the following:
[Wilson] explained that he does not want to remain in the system and wants to live a crime-free life adding that his peers are successful and he feels that relative to them he could be doing better.  He additionally spoke about his recent diagnosis of type 1 diabetes has additionally changed his perspective providing him further motivation to cease recidivism as accommodating diabetes in prison will be very time demanding.  
He additionally spoke about previous occasions where he left prison and felt an immense hatred towards ‘everyone’ and blamed others for his problems however since ‘grow[ing] up’ he has shifted blame from others onto drug abuse and now ‘hate[s]’ ice and confident of remaining abstinent.
111	Wilson was asked how it was that he reoffended in 2019 despite the insights suggested by the above record.  Wilson said he thought he had changed at that point in time.  He was on parole and not using drugs.  
112	As to now, he was asked what was different since the very serious 2019 Offending.  Wilson referred to not ‘hanging out’ with the people he was involved with in the past and having moved away from his home town.  He said it was impossible to change while still being in that area and around the same people.  He said his move to Melbourne was a fresh start and his family.  He stated he had always wanted a baby.  He said he could not think of anything worse than returning to the same behaviour – he said that part of his life was over.
Psychological assessments and treatment 
113	In their written submissions, the Secretary summarised material which suggested that Wilson has had a long history of difficulties managing his emotions.  That, taken with the impacts of his peers group and social circumstances, seemed to have contributed to his past offending and use of violence and aggression.  As noted earlier, while Wilson believed he had matured and his offending was behind him when he was released from prison in around August 2018, he went on to engage in the more serious and violence of the 2019 Offending.
Corrections’ records
114	The TB included an assessment undertaken by a psychologist and ‘Forensic Registrar’ in June 2017.  The assessment report included the following:
•	Wilson presented with ‘moderate to high insight regarding the link between his substance use and offending behaviour’, however he ‘appeared to have reduced insight regarding the underlying function of his illicit substance use’;
•	Wilson reported ‘motivation to elicit and maintain a pro-social lifestyle’ and he ‘identified pro-social goals related to employment and relationships’;
•	Wilson was bailed to a rehabilitation facility and one of his ‘associates’ was there too; they started using ice while there and that led to Wilson having a relapse;
•	Wilson’s alcohol use started at age 16 and he started using ice recreationally at around 20;
•	A relapse into ice use after Wilson’s release from prison in around October 2015 was due to ‘boredom and a relationship breakdown’;
•	Wilson always regretted using ice immediately after and often self-isolated and felt depressed.  He also though liked the sense of having no responsibilities or worries and justified his use on the basis it was not hurting anyone;
•	Wilson confirmed his offending, alcohol and drug use were linked to his ‘antisocial lifestyle, his ‘antisocial peers’ and said ‘when using drugs, everything goes wrong’; and 
•	Wilson’s supportive family, relatively stable vocational history and his motivation to abstain from illicit substances indicated a ‘favourable rehabilitation prognosis if he remains motivated and committed to change’.
115	The TB also included a record of a 7 September 2021 assessment Wilson undertook with Neuropsychologist Dr Loretta Evans in advance of the County Court criminal hearing. 
116	Evan’s findings and recommendations included the following:
In the context of sufficient literacy skills, abilities in language based functions are generally at the lower reaches of the Average range and broadly commensurate with level of education completed: yet clear cognitive strengths in nonverbal domains are identified and characterised by significant capabilities associated with construction, assembly, and pattern detection: which far exceeded expectation.  All aspects of attention are intact and hand/eye coordination, psychomotor speed and cognitive processing are all within normal ranges.  Working memory capacity is slightly above normal levels and memory functioning is intact bilaterally, as is new learning capacity.
Regarding executive functioning, [Wilson] declares excellent reasoning skills, together with the capacity for logical and effective problem solving and decision making.  However, he can be mildly impulsive and intermittently struggles to ‘think on the spot’ – although is well able to self monitor and detect errors.  Furthermore, he offers credible plans for the future that reflect increased responsibilities and indicates his openness to treatment/therapy as directed.
Opinion
Aside from slightly lower than expected reading abilities, [Wilson] declares intact cognitive functioning in all aspects of cognition and, as such, it is highly unlikely that he has sustained any appreciable alcohol or substance related changes to the brain.  Additionally, he does not produce an arrangement of ipsilateral deficits consistent with a traumatic brain injury, nor does he declare a ‘patchy’ pattern of scores to reflect diabetic-related changes to the brain. Hence, from a  neuropsychological perspective, he is functioning exceptionally well. 
117	The related Corrections document stated that Evans made recommendations encouraging engagement with a dual diagnostic clinician and referral for AOD counselling to support relapse prevention. 
118	On 21 September 2021, the Corrections officer and Wilson had a discussion about Evans’ report.  Wilson was recorded as having a preference for being referred for and engaging in mental health review with an appropriate professional.  Wilson was reported as having concerns about engaging in AOD counselling as he believed it may trigger cravings.  His preference was to ‘address underlying mental health concerns that may have contributed to his past illicit drug use’.  Having regard to Wilson’s Corrections ‘engagement, congruent presentation of abstinence and ongoing commitment to engage in prosocial behaviours’ it was agreed that the focus would be on engagement with an appropriate mental health referral. 
119	In a discussion with a Corrections case manager in February 2023, the following was recorded:
In terms of managing his risks of re-offending, [Wilson] stated 80% of his offending behaviour is caused by his association with anti-social peers, with which he has now dis-associated after his move to Melbourne.  [Wilson] accepted that his poor decision making contributed to rest 20% of his offending behaviour.  He explained that alcohol played a major role in him making wrong decisions.
Wilson’s evidence
120	Wilson gave evidence about the psychological treatment he had as required by his parole conditions.  He had a total of six sessions which were funded with assistance from Corrections.  
121	Wilson said it took a couple of sessions to get to know the psychologist and he valued what he learnt.  
122	He explained that, when he was younger, he did not look back at why he did things or understand addictive behaviour.  With the benefit of the counselling, he spent time thinking about himself and his life, asking himself who he was, what triggered him and why he did things.  He spoke of his past use of alcohol and drugs when he was stressed or not coping.  He stated that he would not use for a period of time (such as three months) and then use as a reward or release.  He said that, as soon as he used, he would regret it.  The counselling helped him understand he had an addictive personality and tended to move from one to another addiction. 
123	Wilson described strategies he now uses to manage stress or challenges.  They include counting to 10 before speaking or reacting and thinking first.  Wilson said that, from when he moved away from his home town, he felt completely different and had only experienced a few challenging incidents since he had been released from prison.  When asked to describe them he said one involved a fellow gym user and an argument about using a machine.  Wilson said he was passive, allowing the other man to ‘carry on’.  Wilson said he ignored it and that engaging in the argument did not interest him anymore.  He mentioned feeling frustrated in traffic.  Wilson said that in the past he would have flown off the handle but now he responds with calm.  He reiterated the scare he got from the 2019 Offending and described himself as a changed person.  
124	When asked about references to him being a ‘very angry person’ and how he had addressed that, Wilson said he saw it as an ‘ego thing’ and related to thinking he was invincible.  He stated that now he just thinks about everything.  He referred to his family responsibilities and then explained that he no longer feels the same.  He again referred to feeling he had to prove himself to his friends and others but that now it did not cross his mind to think or act in that way anymore.  He explained that his old behaviours were not reflective of who he was then as he was ‘not really that person’.  Later Wilson described the source of his anger being his old environment and the people he was with, including people he regarded as untrustworthy or ‘dodgy’. 
125	When asked about his current mental health, Wilson’s self-assessment was that he was ‘ok’ and was happy with his family.  He stated he does not have any mental health issues at present and that everything in his life is going well.
126	Wilson was asked about how he would manage if stressful circumstances arose.  He said there were plenty of stressful situations in his life with work, family and managing money but that he stays calm and deals with those issues by trying to think of the nest solution.  He said he did not react and thought things through. 
127	I refer further to Wilson’s evidence about his reform and change below.
Rehabilitation and reform
128	In the conclusion of the County Court Decision, the Judge noted the additional hardships Wilson faced being in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic including the large amount of time prisoners spent in isolation in order to avoid the spread of infection.  The Judge noted that Wilson was unable to receive visits from his family for most of the time he was on remand and that included the fact his mother was unable to visit him face to face. 
129	As to his presentation before the Court in May 2022, the Judge said:
[After listing matters submitted to be in Wilson’s favour] I cannot necessarily agree with the categorisation of his prospects as excellent.  They are strong, perhaps even quite strong.  But in the course of his life, these positive gains are relatively recent, occurring as they have over the past 12 months or so.  I consider there is still work to be done by Wilson in this regard.
. . . 
There is good reason to be optimistic that [Wilson] can permanently reform and lead a productive life in the community.  His rehabilitation thus far is to his credit and must inform this sentencing exercise.  To that end, it was submitted I need not progress to enforce ongoing supervision of him by way of a CCO.
I query if Wilson is really out of the woods yet.  After a decade of serious and persistent offending, his progress on bail is still in its relatively early stages.  I am not inclined to impose a straight sentence, nor am I inclined to burden him with an undue number of programs and employment.  I simply want him to be supervised for a further period of time to monitor his progress.  I have specific regard to the comments made by [Wilson’s counsel] when she very sensibly advocates for mental health treatment in his future.
130	The Judge also observed that it was an unusual case and that ‘people who commit offences of this kind would not expect to receive the kind of sentences that you have just received’, but noted that Wilson’s recent history suggested that he was ‘capable of real reform’.  
131	I have referred above to the AOD treatment Wilson received while in prison, along with the psychological treatment he received post-release.  The above touches on Wilson’s reflections on his past and his current understanding of and attitudes towards his past offending. 
132	Wilson’s CCO was in place until February 2023.  The TB contained reports written by his case worker over the period which I read and which are relevantly summarised in a Discharge Report prepared on 11 May 2023 as follows:
- Supervision;
[Wilson] remained compliant with his attendance in the supervision sessions.  There has not been any issue with [Wilson’s] engagement in the supervision sessions.  He presented as appeared to be calm and polite whilst participating in discussions about his potential risks and associated criminogenic needs.  [Wilson] acknowledged that his anti-social association, alcohol abuse and lack of consequential thinking in the past were the main factors of his offending behaviour.
[Wilson] is now working and residing in Melbourne and believe that with change of location and developing a new social network has assisted him not getting himself involved in high-risk situations.
. . .
There has not been any Police attendances or contacts for Mr Wilson throughout the duration of [the CCO].
133	I now turn to the WSA criteria, referring back to the matters set out above as appropriate.
Unjustifiable risk and the factors under section 63(1) of the WSA
134	The Tribunal is to consider the section 63(1) factors by considering the whole of the available evidence.  The approach has been described as follows (in the context of the predecessor to the WSA, the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic)): 
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 [the applicant’s] care.  In weighing up the evidence, it is important not to focus solely on the present personal circumstances of an applicant, or the characteristics of the 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. 
The nature and gravity of the offence and its relevance to child-related work – section 63(1)(a) 
135	As is apparent, Wilson was taken to each of the 2008, 2017 and 2019 Offending and, in large part, agreed the summaries were accurate.  
136	Wilson rightly described the Category B offending as disgraceful a number of times.  He agreed with the Secretary’s counsel’s description of the 2019 Offending as being extremely serious and involving serious violence.
137	The Secretary submitted that the 2019, 2017 and 2009 Offending taken together constituted serious and grave offending.  It described Wilson’s offending as involving ‘significant violence and threats to inflict significant violence’.  It contended the 2019 Offending was particularly grave. It noted Wilson was undeterred from engaging in the 2019 Offending even after he had repeated contacts with the criminal justice system and multiple findings of guilt.  
138	The Secretary rightly conceded that Wilson has no record of offending against children, it nevertheless submitted that his ‘serious violent offending’ suggested ‘poor decision-making, self-control and self-regulation’.  The Secretary submitted that the very serious nature of Wilson’s offending weighed heavily against him.
139	I agreed with all of the above matters.  Each and every instance of Category B offending was very serious, culminating in the life threatening assault in 2019.  
140	While taken individually the other offending might have varied as to seriousness, taken collectively, the history of offending showed that, for more than 10 years, Wilson displayed a ready willingness to engage in unacceptable and escalating criminal offending including using physical violence and threats.  
141	While the 2008, 2017 and 2019 Offending was not directed towards children, it is relevant to child-related work as it points to a person who was unable to manage challenges or others’ behaviour without resorting to violence or threats of violence.  The other offending had the potential to harm others, including children, in particular Wilson’s involvement in trafficking. 
142	This matter weighs against the grant of a WWC Clearance.
The period of time since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence – section 63(1)(b) 
143	The Secretary submitted that the length of time since the offending occurred is a significant factor when determining risk to children.  However, it is not only the passage of time that is relevant, but what has occurred during that passage of time, and whether the relevant applicant has developed insight into and accepted responsibility for his offending.  It further submitted that, in matters where drugs and alcohol are present, an applicant should be able to demonstrate ongoing rehabilitation from drug abuse or problematic alcohol consumption (or, as in this case, both).  
144	The Secretary contended that, taken in that context, there had been an insufficient amount of time for the Tribunal to view this factor in favour of granting a WWC Clearance.  It submitted the factor ought to be weighed neutrally.
145	The periods which have elapsed since the relevant offending are:
•	Sixteen years since the 2008 Offending;
•	More than seven  years since the 2017 Offending; and 
•	Approximately five and a half years since the 2019 Offending.
146	As to the most recent CCO imposed by the County Court Decision, it ended around 23 months ago in February 2023.
147	The Secretary submitted that while Wilson appeared to have made good progress since he was released from remand in April 2021 after serving nearly 18 months in custody, he had only been in the community ‘unsupervised’ for that period.  It noted that time was comparatively short given Wilson’s ‘very lengthy prior criminal history, commencing in 2008 and continuing for the following 11 years, including serious and violent offending’. 
148	I canvass those matters in greater detail in the context of section 63(1)(g) below.
149	Having said that, in summary, I agree with the submission that the time since the last and most serious offending is to be weighed, at best, as a neutral factor given Wilson’s more than 10 year period of offending.
Whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for the offence and The sentence imposed for the offence – sections 63(1)(c) and 63(1)(d)
150	I have summarised above the outcomes for the 2008, 2017 and 2019  and 2008 Offending.
The ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant committed the offence – section 63(1)(e) 
151	Wilson’s age and that of the relevant victim were as follows at the time of the relevant offending:
•	2008 Offending: 17 and 18 years old;
•	2017 Offending: 26 and 29 years old; and 
•	2019 Offending: 28 and 48 years old.
Whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence or to which the charge relates has been decriminalised – section 63(1)(f)
152	None of the conduct has been decriminalised.
The applicant's behaviour since the applicant committed the offences – section 63(1)(g)
153	I have addressed above many aspects of Wilson’s behaviour since his 2008 Offending and, in particular, how he has behaved since the 2019 Offending. 
154	In broad terms, Wilson described his offending as having ‘ruined’ his 20s and now saw himself as a changed person with a different personality.  That seems to be a most apt description from the way he gave evidence and participated in the hearing as compared to the aggression and violence involved in his offending.  He was calm, thoughtful and open.
155	The Judge’s comments supported viewing Wilson as having made notable progress in outlook and rehabilitation.  Wilson’s Corrections case manager consistently described him as presenting in ‘his usual calm and polite manner’.  As shown by the Discharge Report prepared on 11 May 2023, Wilson was cooperative and engaged in reflecting on his past offending.  
156	Wilson’s capacity to separate himself completely from his old life and start again in Melbourne is commendable.  It would appear that he has achieved his determination to break with the past destructive relationships and influences over the last three years.  
157	The way in which he spoke about his loving commitment to his partner, step-children and baby was compelling.  It was apparent that Wilson’s partner is not only a very positive influence on him but models the kind of behaviour he seeks to replicate. 
158	Counterbalancing matters emerged from the Secretary’s written submissions.
159	The relevance of Wilson’s behaviour during the period 2008 to 2017 was said to show the long history of his offending conduct.  The Secretary noted that Wilson continued to offend for almost all of his adult life, commencing from when he was 17 years of age and continuing throughout his twenties and until he was released from prison on bail in April 2021 at the age of 30 years.  The Secretary noted that Wilson then remained under supervision — first on bail, and then on a CCO, for a further two years until February 2023. 
160	The Secretary submitted that, while there had been no sign of any offending since his release from prison in April 2021 and there was some evidence Wilson had developed insight into his drug use and offending, insufficient time had elapsed to be satisfied that Wilson would not ‘return to old habits’. 
161	As discussed further below, I agree with the submission that more time is required to demonstrate that Wilson’s rehabilitation is complete given his lengthy period of offending through the use of violence and when influenced by alcohol or drugs.  
The likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant – section 63(1)(h) 
162	This factor is a key consideration in making decisions under the WSA.  It is for the applicant for a WWC Clearance to show that they are not a risk rather than for the Secretary to show that they are.
163	The ‘likelihood of future threat’ is understood to mean no more than ‘the chance of future threat’ and a ‘chance of a future threat.  A threat is a relevant consideration, irrespective of its magnitude.  Where the chance is ‘minimal’, the consideration may favour the applicant but the ‘greater the chance, the less favourable is the consideration from the applicant’s perspective’. 
164	Neither the Secretary’s submissions nor the evidence before me suggests that Wilson poses a future threat of causing a child harm by his direct actions including because none of his past offending was directly against children.  
165	There is an indirect chance that, if he were to re-offend again, Wilson may cause harm to children by harming the parents of children due to a repeat of violence, aggression or through drug trafficking.  In this case, it is the indirect risk which is most relevant.  I discuss the chance of Wilson engaging in that form of harm below.  
Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application – section 63(1)(i) 
166	I have already touched on my impressions of the importance of Wilson’s relationship with his partner, step-children and young baby.  I treat all of the evidence he gave about them and his motivation to continue to support and care for them as other significant protective features. 
167	In addition to the employment related references referred to above, Wilson provided a reference written by his Mother (who has a different surname and who it is not necessary to identify) on 15 May 2024.  The Mother did not identify herself as such in the reference which included the following:
[Wilson] has proven himself in being a caring and compassionate young man, since his move to Melbourne in 2021.
Moving away . . .  for a fresh start and new beginning, he has been able to secure a stable job as a building apprentice.  In this job he has proved to be dedicated, honest and a hardworking man.
In the past 3 years [Wilson] has completely turned around his whole life for the better.  He is in a committed and loving relationship and expecting his very first child in September.  This is another important factor for his determination for only improvement in his life, to live a positive and happy life.
In [Wilson’s] lifetime I have never seen him raise his voice let alone ever making a child feel any thing but safe around him.
I have no hesitation in highly recommending [Wilson]  to be able to obtain his [WWC Clearance].
168	The Secretary’s counsel referred me to Corrections records which raised queries about the degree to which the Mother had absorbed and accepted the nature and extent of Wilson’s past offending.  As the Mother did not attend to give evidence, I was unable to ascertain the degree to which her consistent and positive support for her son took account of that offending.  Nevertheless, I treat her ongoing involvement with Wilson and his family as a protective feature.  
169	As to the impact of a WWC Clearance on his current employment, I have proceeded on the basis that not holding that Clearance may mean he can only work on more limited projects or, at worst, mean he cannot continue at all.  That would be regrettable given the importance of the employment for Wilson and the strong confidence Referee 2 expressed as to Wilson’s current character.  As is often stated though, the wishes of an applicant for a WWC Clearance and their wish to work are secondary to the considerations in the WSA which are focused on the safety of children. 
Any other matter that the Tribunal considers relevant to the application – section 63(1)(j)
170	The applicant’s insight is often considered under this factor. 
171	I have discussed Wilson’s reflections on his past conduct above.  I draw from them and the other material (especially Evan’s report and the Corrections records) to make my assessment. 
172	The summary of Wilson’s history points to three possible causes of the past offending:
•	The influence of his old associates or others who use violence and aggression for status and who engage in criminal behaviour;
•	The abuse of alcohol or drugs to fit in with peers, to cope with the lifestyle or to overcome boredom or other frustrations; and 
•	A limited capacity to think through how to react to challenging circumstances and to assess the consequences of a violent or aggressive response.
173	The material provided by Wilson, including the references referred to above, indicate that Wilson has applied determination and intelligence to minimising the impacts of those past behaviours.  
174	It seems to me that disconnecting from the old lifestyle and associates required more than a move to another place and removing contact numbers from his phone;  I anticipate Wilson had to work on achieving and maintaining those changes on a daily basis for some time.  It would appear that he is now living in a very different world surrounded by law abiding people.
175	It appears that the six psychology sessions assisted Wilson to consolidate and develop insight into his past thinking and provided protective skills for the future.  That leads me to the lack of an independent psychological report.  
176	It is by no means compulsory for an applicant for a WWC Clearance to obtain an expert risk assessment.  As Wilson stated at the hearing, it is very difficult to locate such an expert and obtain an appointment, even if the around $2,000 cost of a report is affordable.  The same challenges arise when ongoing psychological therapy is sought.  
177	Ongoing psychological therapy is not compulsory either however, it can achieve two useful purposes.  The first is assisting the individual to build on the progress they have made in changing their lives and thinking and so protect them when stress and difficulties arise, as they inevitably will.  The second is that a report from a treating psychologist can describe the topics covered in sessions, how the individual speaks of their past conduct and why they engaged in it and support a claim of meaningful change.
178	Psychological counselling and therapy is not for everyone because they prefer not to engage in it or because the cost is prohibitive.  The same may be said in respect of a program of AOD focussed support.
179	Where evidence of that kind is not present, other evidence may fill the gaps to demonstrate that the source of risk is minimal or has been eliminated.  The forms of evidence which can assist includes the following non-exhaustive list:
•	Confirmation of no further offending;
•	Stable relationships with supportive family and/or friends;
•	Connections with professional supports (such as a general practitioner, social worker or other adviser) that can be called on as needed;
•	Stable employment in a work setting which demonstrates the applicant is trustworthy and able to support themselves (and where relevant their family members); and 
•	A proportionate period of time since the last offending and completion of Court requirements for supervision and the like.
180	While some of the above considerations may fall in Wilson’s favour, I have concluded the time since Wilson has demonstrated change as compared to his prolonged offending is insufficient to form the view that he is no longer at risk of resuming excessive alcohol (or drug) use or being capable of managing more significant stresses in life without resorting to aggression or violence.  Had more relevant evidence been available, had a few more years passed or had Wilson taken up the challenge of delving deeper into the triggers for his past offending, my conclusion may have been different. 
Finding on whether Wilson poses an unjustifiable risk to children
181	The following describes the Tribunal’s task when considering unjustifiable risk to children:
the function of the tribunal is to determine whether it is satisfied that giving an assessment notice ‘would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children’, having regard to specified considerations.  For the reasons which I have given, the performance of that function requires the tribunal to make a rational, objective and evidence-based assessment of the nature and degree of the risk (if any) which giving the notice would pose in the given facts and circumstances.  The concept of ‘unjustifiable risk’ incorporates notions of weighing, balancing and proportionality.  Taking into account the considerations specified in [the equivalent of section 63(2)], the seriousness of the potential harm must be assessed against the probability of it occurring.  The tribunal’s risk assessment must be an evaluative judgment about whether giving the notice would not pose an ‘unjustifiable risk’ to the safety of children, not about whether giving a notice would not pose a, any or no risk or put children at risk. 
. . . 
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 [the applicant’s] care.  In weighing up the evidence, it is important not to focus solely on the present personal circumstances of an applicant, or the characteristics of the 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.
182	There is no evidence that Wilson poses a present risk of causing harm to children by direct action.  There is no evidence that his offending has directly harmed a child.  
183	In this case, the evaluative task is tied to the balancing of Wilson’s rehabilitation and reformation as far as it can be ascertained against the risk that he may offend again or act in a dangerous manner due to excessive alcohol consumption or uncontrolled anger, causing harm to the community which might include children. 
184	I have concluded that, in the absence of compelling evidence that the changes Wilson appears to have made in himself are now entrenched, the time since Wilson completed his last sentence and has been in the community unsupervised is insufficient to demonstrate that he does not pose an unjustifiable risk to children. 
The reasonable person test – section 107(2)(a)
185	The approach to be taken to the reasonable person test is well-known.  That person would inform themselves about all of the information and evidence before me, as provided by Wilson and the Secretary.  A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind thinking that a person who has offended can never be redeemed.  The reasonable person would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution though in an optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.
186	The reasonable person is required to consider whether they would allow Wilson to have contact with their own child.
187	As discussed above, I proceed on the basis that there has been no past offending against children.  While there is limited evidence about Wilson’s past involvement with children, I note the clearly close and parental role he takes with his step-children, his own child and his Mother’s statement that she had never seen him raise his voice or do anything to make a child feel unsafe.
188	For the same reasons as given above, in my view a reasonable parent would commend Wilson for the changes he has made in his life and wish him every success but at this time retain concerns that he may again act irresponsibly or with violence if he began binge drinking again or faced an overwhelmingly challenging situation in his work or personal life. 
The ‘any type of child-related work’ test – section 107(2)(b)
189	It is understood that the criteria in section 107(2)(b) of the WSA ordinarily overlaps significantly with the test in section 62(1)(h) which focuses on the likelihood of a future threat to a child.  
190	In those circumstances I adopt the analysis above (see [162]-[165] and [181]-[184]). 
The public interest test – section 107(3)
191	Given the conclusions I have reached above it is strictly unnecessary to make a finding under section 107(3) of the WSA.
192	It is well understood that the core of the public interest test is the paramount consideration (the protection of children from sexual and physical harm).
193	There is also a public interest in people who are reformed being able to work in a field which is suitable for their skills, temperament and ambitions.  
194	As I understand it, Wilson seeks the WWC Clearance because, in order to continue to undertake building and maintenance work at local government facilities where he may attend (but not work directly with or supervise children), he must have that Clearance.  It is not apparent how that kind of work would fall within the meaning of ‘child-related work’ in section 9 of the WSA.  In any event, while the grant of a WWC Clearance would allow Wilson to engage directly with children, including as a volunteer, there is no evidence before me to indicate that is on his horizon.  It is to be hoped that his employer and the council staff who know and trust him can find a way for him to continue in his present career.
Final conclusion
195	For the reasons given, the Secretary’s decision to give a WWC Exclusion is confirmed.

A Dea
Senior Member