VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	vcat reference No. Z175/2019
	
CATCHWORDS	
Review and Regulation List – Working with Children Act 2005; ss 13(2), 26(1), 26B, Category B application; sexual assault; decision of respondent set aside. Respondent directed to give applicant an Assessment Notice. Open Courts Act 2013 – no order made. 	

APPLICANT	Timothy Simpson	
RESPONDENT	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	H. Lambrick, Deputy President	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	5 June 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	21 June 2019	
CITATION	Simpson v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 911	

Order
Orders under Working with Children Act 2005 
1	The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the respondent dated 29 January 2019 and directs the respondent to issue an Assessment Notice to the applicant under s. 26(1) of the Working with Children Act 2005. 
Orders under the Open Courts Act 2013
2	The applicant’s request for a suppression order pursuant to section 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 is refused.  

H. Lambrick
Deputy President			

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant 	In person	
For Respondent	Mr. S. Brnovic of Counsel	

Reasons
1	Until 27 October 2018, Mr Simpson led a blameless existence. Married for 12 years, with young children, he and his wife ran their own successful business. Mr Simpson was an active participant in children’s sporting events. He held an Assessment Notice under the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) (“the WWC Act”), which enabled him to work with children in any kind of child-related work.
2	However, on 27 October 2018, after a day at the races with friends, Mr Simpson boarded a train late at night whilst intoxicated. An unfortunate young woman listening to music on the train received Mr Simpson’s unwanted attention. He sat next to her and directed a series of lewd remarks her way. He placed his hand upon hers before moving his hand to her upper thigh.
3	On 17 November 2018, Mr Simpson was charged by Victoria Police with sexual assault.
4	On 22 November 2018, Victoria Police notified the Working with Children Check Unit of the charges, which triggered a need for the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) to reassess Mr Simpson’s eligibility to hold an Assessment Notice. The reassessment was a Category B reassessment. 
5	The Secretary was required to revoke the Assessment Notice unless satisfied that Mr Simpson would not, if continuing to hold the Assessment Notice, pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. The Secretary was not so satisfied and on 29 January 2019, revoked Mr Simpson’s Assessment Notice and issued Mr Simpson with a Negative Notice.
6	Mr Simpson is now extremely embarrassed by and deeply regrets his offending. The revocation of his Assessment Notice has impacted on his work and family life. He requires an Assessment Notice in order to be involved in his children’s sporting events and school excursions, to continue his active involvement in local community football and netball clubs, and for some of his employment contracts. 
7	Mr Simpson therefore filed an application with this Tribunal seeking orders under s. 26(1) of the WWC Act to set aside the revocation and grant him an Assessment Notice.
8	On 5 June 2019, the hearing was listed before me. Mr Simpson gave evidence. I also heard evidence from his wife, Mrs Nicole Simpson, his brother Mr Brett Simpson, and his psychologist Dr Carly Glaubitz.
9	I read positive character references from Mr Paul Bissenella, who is a local school principal and Ms Gayle Haintz, who is Mr Simpson’s sister-in-law.
Legislative structure of the WWC Act 
10	Section 1(1) of the WWC Act sets out the main purpose of the WWC Act which is to assist in protecting children from sexual or physical harm by ensuring that people who work with, or care for, them are subject to a screening process. 
11	Section 1A of the WWC Act stipulates that when this Tribunal makes a decision or takes an action under the WWC Act, that the protection of children from sexual and physical harm must be the paramount consideration. 
Section 26B(1) of the WWC Act
12	Section 26B(1) of the WWC Act says:
In a review of a decision to give a negative notice on a category B application or in relation to a category B re-assessment, VCAT must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give an assessment notice unless satisfied that giving the assessment notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, having regard to any matters to which the Secretary must have regard under section 13(2).
Section 13(2) of the WWC Act states that the Secretary must refuse to give an assessment notice on a category B application unless satisfied that doing so would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children having regard to— 
(a)	the nature and gravity of the offence or alleged offence and its relevance to child-related work; and 
(b)	the period of time since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and 
(c)	whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for the offence or a charge for the offence is still pending; and 
(d)	the sentence imposed for the offence; and 
(e)	the ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and 
(f)	whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence or to which the charge relates has been decriminalised since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and 
(g)	the applicant’s behaviour since he or she committed, or allegedly committed, the offence; and 
(h)	the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant; and 
(i)	any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application; and 
(j)	any other matter that the Secretary considers relevant to the application. 
13	Section 26B(2) of the WWC Act further provides that I must satisfied that: 
(a)	a reasonable person would allow his or her 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. 
14	Section 26B(3) of the WWC Act finally provides that even if the Tribunal is satisfied that giving an assessment notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, it must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give the assessment notice unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. 
15	I turn first to address the criteria set out under s. 13(2) of the WWC Act.
The nature and the gravity of the offences and its relevance to child-related work
16	Throughout the day of his offending, Mr Simpson had been drinking alcohol. He is unable to recall any detail of the offending. He nevertheless accepts the following summary of the incident placed before the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court: 
The complainant stated, “A man unknown to me approached me” – approached, sorry, “from behind and sat next to me. I had my earphones in and was looking at my phone. I thought it was strange as there were plenty of other seats this man could have sat in. Despite me paying no attention to his presence, he still spoke to me.” 
… The accused said to the complainant, “I think things will begin to heat up in a few stops” and went on to say, “What about a kiss?” The complainant was frightened and told the accused, “No” repeatedly. However, the accused persisted. He stared at the complainant’s legs and said, “Fuck, you’ve got” - - “Fuck you’re not” - - “Fuck, you’ve got good legs” sorry, Your Honour, “Fuck, you’ve got good legs.” 
… The accused asked the complainant if she was involved in the Bacchus Marsh netball or football clubs. The complainant replied, “No” and commented that she would be unable to play because of her long fingernails. The accused replied, “How would those nails feel around my dick?” 
… He tried to convince the complainant to go with him to Ballarat and said if she did he would pay for the whole night. The complainant stated: I said no and that I wanted to go home to bed. His comment about a kiss continued to escalate and he said, “here, let me show you’. And she said, “I refuse to look in his direction the entire time because I was scared that he would make an attempt, and I could feel him moving his head and his face closer to mine. I said, “kiss your hand” and he sounded annoyed, and he said “no thanks”.
… The accused placed his left hand on top of the complainant’s right hand and held it. The complainant had her hand resting on her right thigh. The accused asked the complainant if he could have his hand there and the complainant responded with a facial expression, not - - and as noted, not one of approval, in the summary. The accused said, “Good.” 
… Shortly afterwards, the accused placed his left - - sorry, his hand, directly on the complainant’s upper right thigh. The complainant said, “His hand was on the top of my right thigh with his little finger just on the inside of my thigh and he was stroking my skin with his little finger.” My play suit was short when I was seated, so his entire hand was on my skin. I do not know how long this went on for, but to me it felt like an eternity. I froze and felt like I couldn’t run because I was in a corner, and couldn’t move without squeezing out past him.
17	Mr Simpson sat beside the victim in an otherwise empty carriage. She did not wish to be disturbed by him. She was wearing earphones. He intruded on her personal space. His unwanted conversation quickly progressed to sexualised remarks and sexual assault. The victim told police she felt extremely frightened and anxious. This is not surprising.  
18	She was alone on a train at night. She was vulnerable. Young women are entitled to ride the train at night without being assaulted.
19	Mr Simpson told police that he had consumed between 12 and 16 cans of beer over a 14-hour period. This is no excuse for his conduct. Not everyone who consumes alcohol, even to excess, sexually assaults others.
20	In Wright-Smith v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 2029, I made the following observations in relation to the relevance of such offending to child-related work at [19] which I repeat here:
Any offending of a sexualised nature is serious. It is conduct that is neither sought nor wanted by the victim. … When somebody wishes to work with children, sexual disinhibition raises concerns. If an individual is prepared to touch another person, without their consent, simply because he is intoxicated, it is not automatically clear whether or not he will extend the risk to others, including children, who happen to be in close proximity. … 
21	Individuals who wish to work with children must always exercise appropriate judgement. They need to be aware of the safety of others and not act on impulse. Mr Simpson’s behaviour on this occasion was inconsistent with the qualities of a person suitable to hold an Assessment Notice.
22	I nevertheless accept that the behaviour was out of character for Mr Simpson. Mr Simpson acknowledges that his conduct was completely unacceptable. I accept that he is very ashamed of himself. He did not attempt to downplay his conduct. He has taken it seriously. He has told his wife and family members about his conduct. They too are very disappointed in him and horrified that he conducted himself in this way. They consider his conduct completely out of character. I accept that it was.
The period of time since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence
23	The Secretary raised concerns that only seven months has passed since Mr Simpson committed the offence. The Secretary submitted that not enough time has passed to show the Tribunal he has meaningfully rehabilitated and poses no unacceptable risk to children. The Secretary stressed there was little objective evidence to show Mr Simpson’s rehabilitation. 
24	Seven months is not a lengthy period of time. 
25	Nevertheless, much has happened in the past seven months. 
26	Mr Simpson, who was a person with no prior criminal history, has been required to present before a Magistrate to be sentenced for a serious criminal offence. I accept that he has taken this very seriously and learnt from the experience.
27	Mr Simpson has had to explain his conduct to his wife, sister-in-law, brother and a local school principal. His family members have expressed their shame and disgust. His wife in particular has made her concerns about such conduct very well known to him. He and his wife are undertaking counselling to deal with their respective issues arising from Mr Simpson’s conduct. I accept that work stressors may have led to his over-consumption of alcohol. I accept his evidence that he has reduced his alcohol intake and reverted to only drinking lighter beers. I accept that his apprentice who had suffered a serious injury is now back at work, reducing the work stress. 
28	Mr Simpson had his Assessment Notice revoked. This has had a significant impact on him during the course of 2019. He and his brother ensure various sporting activities take place for children in the country area in which they live, such as Auskick and netball. Mr Simpson has not been able to participate. Mr Simpson has not been able to participate in some of his own children’s activities. Although he has been able to work, he has not been able to perform any work as an electrician which requires him to attend upon school premises. 
29	I accept that Mr Simpson has taken the matter extremely seriously. He wrote a letter of apology to the victim which was read to the Court. Whilst the Secretary contended that it was somewhat centred on the impact of the offending on Mr Simpson, I accepted that Mr Simpson was an individual who was genuinely concerned about the victim and the impact his offending would have had on her. I accepted that his letter was a genuine attempt to say “sorry”.
Whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for the offence or a charge for the offence is still pending and the sentence imposed for the offence 
30	Mr Simpson entered a plea of guilty. He was sentenced, without conviction, to a Community Corrections Order for a period of 18 months. 
31	The order commenced on 31 January 2019 with supervision conditions and requirements to attend for assessment and treatment (including testing) for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed, and to attend offending behaviour program/s as directed.
32	The sentencing Magistrate rejected the submissions made on behalf of Mr Simpson that an adjourned undertaking would be an appropriate penalty. He regarded the circumstances of Mr Simpson’s offending as serious. It was. 
33	The Secretary emphasised that Mr Simpson is still undergoing his sentence, such that his application for an Assessment Notice was premature.  
34	An application made during the course of a sentence will sometimes be premature. Each case must however be looked at on its own merits. I do not consider this application to be premature. As part of his Community Corrections Order, Mr Simpson is required to undertake the Better Life Program in Melbourne. The program starts on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 and will require his ongoing attendance for 3 hours each week. He has committed to 70 hours. He will have, during the program, an ongoing reminder of the serious nature of his offending. The stringent conditions imposed on Mr Simpson are protective, ensuring that his intention to never reoffend is entrenched. Having heard from Mr Simpson, I have no doubt that he will completely abide by the terms of his order.
The ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence 
35	At the time of the offence, Mr Simpson was 37. The victim was 26.
36	Mr Simpson knew his victim was an adult. There is no suggestion he was targeting children. 
Whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence or to which the charge relates has been decriminalised since the applicant committed, or allegedly committed, the offence 
37	The conduct has not been decriminalised. On the contrary, society takes an increasingly strong and firm view against sexual assault. 
38	Young men are more educated than ever before as to what is and is not appropriate conduct. 
The applicant’s behaviour since he committed, or allegedly committed, the offence 
39	Mr Simpson has not reoffended. 
40	He has apologised to the victim through an open letter to the Court. 
41	He continues to attend upon a psychologist. 
42	He has commenced a journey to rehabilitation. 
43	Whilst the Secretary urged me to place very little weight on Mr Simpson’s lack of reoffending, apology and rehabilitative efforts, I was not convinced that it would be fair or appropriate to do so.
44	Mr Simpson has not tried to lessen or minimise the severity of his offending. I accept he fully appreciates the seriousness of the offence. 
45	Mr Simpson gave evidence that he has not been able to be involved in his children’s schooling and sporting events. He said usually he is able to help every night. Instead, he has had to rely on others to assist with the children’s activities.
46	I accept Mr Simpson’s evidence that this has been a “massive lesson learnt” and that a school where he has performed electrical work has asked him to perform ongoing maintenance, however he has been unable to do so. Time out from his usual activities has enabled him to fully appreciate the consequences of his offending. He feels “terrible [and] ashamed” of himself and “certainly did not want to make anyone feel unsafe.”  
47	He has been left in no doubt of the consequences of such offending, not only on the victim, but on those around him. He is having to regain the respect of his wife and family. His conduct has placed a strain on his marriage. 
48	I accept that Mr Simpson was under a degree of work stress at the time. Mr Simpson provided evidence his apprentice is now working three days a week and has a car. This has alleviated his workload and reduced his stress. 
49	Dr Glaubitz gave evidence Mr Simpson was remorseful for his offending and understood the impact of his offending on his victim. She confirmed that she is working with Mr Simpson on stress relief strategies. This includes psychoeducation, helping him to learn how to reduce stress and adopt a healthy lifestyle. She gave evidence that he has stopped binge drinking. She said he wants to maintain these positive life changes with the psychological treatment. To date, he has attended 4 sessions with a further two sessions scheduled in the next 2 months. There were no other underlying problems in relation to his stress to warrant her concern. 
50	The Secretary emphasised that the sessions did not focus on rehabilitation and relapse prevention. I was not concerned by this. 
51	There was nothing at all before me upon which I could conclude or find that Mr Simpson has any predilection to acting in the manner he acted in on this occasion. I accept the episode to be a once-off. Nevertheless, Mr Simpson is taking every possible step to ensure he does not reoffend and is addressing any potential underlying causes for his offending. This is a positive factor in his favour. 
52	I was satisfied that his seeking help from Dr Glaubitz was indicative of remorse and insight into his offending. 
53	Mr Simpson’s brother, Mr Brett Simpson, gave strong supportive evidence.  He said Mr Simpson was very remorseful – he had never seen someone so remorseful. He gave evidence that he regularly spends family time with Mr Simpson. He has hardly seen Mr Simpson drink since the offending. I accepted his evidence. 
The likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant 
54	Concerning the serious offending in question, as Kryou J said in Maleckas (LKQ) v Secretary, Department of Justice [2011] VSC 227 (31 May 2011); 34 VR 23 at [72]:
… A chance of a future threat, irrespective of its magnitude, is a relevant consideration under s 13(2)(h). Clearly, where the chance is minimal, the considerations may favour the applicant. The greater the chance, the less favourable is the consideration from the applicant’s perspective.
55	Mr Simpson was assessed by Corrections Victoria to be a low risk offender. The sentencing Magistrate accepted his offending was a “one-off offence” and likely to never occur again.
56	The Secretary emphasised that Mr Simpson did not provide an independent risk assessment. I do not consider that I would have been further assisted by the provision of a formal assessment in addition to the Corrections Victoria assessment, coupled with the other positive evidence before me. Mr Simpson has no prior offending history. He has not reoffended. 
57	I am satisfied that Mr Simpson is highly unlikely to reoffend. I am satisfied that the threat posed by him to a child is extremely low. The Secretary emphasised that Mr Simpson may cause a future threat to a child if he were to relapse into alcohol use and similar circumstances present themselves. I disagree that there is any evidence to support this contention. The victim was an adult. There is no evidence to suggest Mr Simpson was targeting a child or children, or that he would do so in the future. 
58	I accept that he is remorseful and ashamed of his offending.
59	I accept he has a supportive family whom he feels he has let down and who he does not wish to let down again. 
60	I accept that Mr Simpson has demonstrated insight into his offending which occurred whilst under the influence of alcohol. I accept Mr Simpson’s evidence that his day at the races on 27 October 2018 did not reflect his usual drinking habits. I accept that once sober, he was appalled by his behaviour and has curbed his drinking accordingly. I accept that he has learnt from this episode the importance of controlling his alcohol intake. I accept that this will be further entrenched by the coursework he is undertaking. I accept he has resolved never to repeat the behaviour. 
61	Mr Simpson has a long positive history of appropriate engagement within the community. He is entitled to draw upon this. There is objective evidence before me of the positive contribution Mr Simpson has made throughout his life in the community. I do not consider Mr Simpson should be forever defined by this one very unfortunate episode.
62	It was evident at the hearing that Mrs Simpson was gravely affected by her husband’s offending. Although it has been a difficult time for Mrs Simpson, she has stood by and supported him. I am satisfied he will not let her down again.
63	Having heard from Mr Simpson and those who surround him, I accept that Mr Simpson’s offending was a serious error of judgement which is highly unlikely to be repeated.
64	Mr Simpson’s conduct apart from the sexual assault offence has been without blemish. He has been a solid, active member of the community. 
65	Mr Simpson has been an active volunteer with children in the local football and netball club. Mr Simpson has been involved as an active parent in his children’s school. He has worked to support his family. I accept he has been actively involved with his own children, the children of his brother, and the children of his sister-in-law without incident. He has been a supportive uncle. 
66	Taking all these factors into account, I accept that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise positive life which will not be repeated. The threat posed by Mr Simpson to a child is extremely low. 
Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application 
67	I read very positive character material from Mr Simpson’s wife, Ms Nicole Simpson, his sister-in-law Ms Gayle Haintz, and his brother Mr Brett Simpson, all of whom were aware of his sexual assault charge. I also have before me a reference from Mr Paul Bissinella, the Principal at a local school. 
68	I fully accepted Mrs Simpson’s evidence that the offending was out of character for Mr Simpson. I accepted that Mr Simpson is a good father who is very involved in his children’s lives. 
69	Perhaps the character evidence which best encapsulated the case before me came from Mr Simpson’s brother, Mr Brett Simpson. Over the last four years, the pair have worked together to run the local football and netball club in which they coach and mentor children every week. 
70	Mr Brett Simpson gave evidence that he relied on Mr Simpson to help with each of the clubs as the kids would be “buggered without him”. Mr Brett Simpson gave evidence that Mr Simpson is very good with children and is an active volunteer as “help is so hard to find and [Mr Simpson’s] always the first one”. During the hearing, Mr Brett Simpson provided evidence Mr Simpson’s offence was out of character and it “shocked the hell out of me”. I accepted that the real Mr Simpson was a good contributing member of the community who made a mistake which would not be repeated.
Any other matter that the Secretary considers relevant to the application 
71	There were no other matters.
Conclusion s. 26B(1) of the WWC Act
72	As Bell J said in ZZ v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 at [134]:
The test of ‘unjustifiable risk’ requires the specified considerations to be addressed. As part of that consideration, the Secretary (and the tribunal) must make a rational, objective and evidence-based assessment of the nature and degree of the risk (if any) which giving the notice would pose. The assessment must be rational in the sense of balanced and not arbitrary and refusing to give a notice must be a proportionate decision in the circumstances. …
73	I am satisfied that giving an Assessment Notice to Mr Simpson would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children having regard to any matters to which the Secretary must have regard under s. 13(2) of the WWC Act.
Section 26B(2) of the WWC Act
74	Under section 26B(2) of the WWC Act, I must be satisfied that: 
(a)	a reasonable person would allow his or her 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. 
75	In JGF v Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1728 (3 October 2013) at [25], Macnamara J said:
A reasonable person would be acquainted with the truism ... that there are no risk free encounters in human life. A reasonable person would, in considering the situation of JGF, wish to acquaint himself or herself with the full range of material that has been placed before me including the character evidence, the history of his good character during his adult life and the expert opinions. A reasonable person would retain a measure of scepticism and caution but would not approach an issue such as this with the thought that once a person had, if you will, shown the cloven hoof, albeit decades ago and as a very young man, that he could never be redeemed.
76	There is no doubt that the reasonable person would be concerned when reading about the details of Mr Simpson’s offending. 
77	However, I am satisfied that the reasonable person would be reassured that the offending was a one-off aberration in an otherwise blameless life. The reasonable person would take into account Mr Simpson’s strong family support and his involvement with his children and within the community. The reasonable person would take into account his lack of any criminal history. 
78	The reasonable person would be impressed by the evidence of Mr Simpson’s character witnesses. They would consider those witnesses to be sensible and even-handed. They would take comfort from the fact that Mr Simpson provided his witnesses with honest details of his sexual assault charge. The reasonable person would accept the witnesses’ evidence that his offending was out of character. The reasonable parent would accept that other parents do not hesitate to leave their children in his company despite learning of his sexual assault offence. 
79	I am satisfied that the reasonable person, taking into account Mr Simpson’s good character over the many years, and the unlikelihood of his reoffending, would allow his or her child to have direct contact with Mr Simpson whilst he was engaged in any type of child-related work. 
80	The reasonable person would see Mr Simpson as an important role model for children.
81	Mr Simpson has been praised by his family members and children’s school principal who have seen the way he engages with his own children and their own. He has a supportive family. 
82	I cannot discount his previously unblemished record and conduct within the community. I cannot discount the admiring character references of his witnesses who have known him since childhood and during his parenthood. 
83	I am satisfied that Mr Simpson’s engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. 
Section 26B(3) of the WWC Act – Public interest test
84	Section 26B(3) of the WWC Act finally provides that even if I am satisfied that giving an assessment notice would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, I must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give the Assessment Notice unless satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. 
85	I am satisfied that it is in the public interest to give an Assessment Notice to Mr Simpson. 
86	I adopt the words of Macnamara J where he said in JGF v Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1728 (3 October 2013) at [27]:
… Public interest is not in my view served by saying once a person has taken the wrong turn, that person can never be redeemed. There is a public interest in family men being able to participate in the lives of their families and their children to the fullest extent possible which necessarily would require such persons to engage in volunteer and child related work in connection with the rearing of their own children. It is in my view in the public interest that this occur so long as no unjustifiable risk is entailed. I have already explained why in my view no unjustifiable risk is entailed here. Again, as Ms Forsyth correctly observed, there is a public interest in the encouragement of volunteer work and finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a strong public interest in rehabilitation. Those who have offended should at all times be encouraged to accept and believe that by turning aside from wrongdoing and bearing a good character they can redeem themselves in the sight of the community and be readmitted in every respect as persons in good standing.
87	It is the protection of children rather than the individual interests of an applicant for an Assessment Notice that lies at the core of the legislative regime. 
88	I have found that Mr Simpson does not pose a threat to children. I have found there to be no unjustifiable risk to children in his holding an Assessment Notice.
89	I am satisfied that it is positively in the public interest that Mr Simpson continue to work in his business, be actively and fully involved in his children’s lives, and contribute to the community through the local football and netball clubs. The community benefits from the likes of Mr Simpson. 
90	Country communities often depend on individuals dedicating their time to volunteering. It is in the public interest that he continue to do so.
91	The outcome of rejecting his Assessment Notice today would mean Mr Simpson could not reapply for an Assessment Notice for a period of 5 years. It is not in the public interest to isolate an involved, active and caring father from his children’s co-curricular activities and the community for a further 5 years when he poses no threat to children. 
Conclusion 
92	I will direct the Secretary to give an Assessment Notice to Mr Simpson. 
Orders under the Open Courts Act 2013 
93	At the outset of these proceedings and then again at their conclusion, Mr Simpson asked that I make orders under the Open Courts Act 2013 (“the OCA”) suppressing his name. 
94	As a man with no prior convictions, and a young family, Mr Simpson is understandably ashamed of his offending and the embarrassment his conduct has brought not only to himself, but to his wife and children. 
95	In applications under the OCA, it is for an applicant to establish convincingly that the presumption of open justice and free communication of information should be qualified, and the requested order made. 
96	I refused to make the order sought. It is an insufficient basis to make a suppression order that a public hearing or naming of an applicant will or may create embarrassment for that individual or his/her family, friends or associates. 
97	I was not satisfied that Mr Simpson had provided any basis upon which I could or should make orders under the OCA.

H. Lambrick
Deputy President