VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	
vcat reference No. Z670/2020	
CATCHWORDS	
Review and Regulation List – Working with Children Act 2005 – Worker Screening Act 2020, s 108 category C reassessment.	

APPLICANT	EDO	
RESPONDENT	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	H. Lambrick, Deputy President	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing via video conference	
DATE OF HEARING	15 June 2021	
DATE OF ORDER and reasons	17 August 2021	
CITATION	EDO v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 936	
Orders
1	The decision of the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) to give EDO a negative assessment notice under the Working with Children Act 2005 is set aside.
2	The Secretary is directed to give EDO a WWC clearance under the Worker Screening Act 2020.

H. Lambrick
Deputy President			

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant 	EDO, in person	
For Respondent	Mr Brnovic of counsel	

Reasons
1	EDO wishes to work with children in the setting of Sunday school. He has a long and successful history of volunteering in this way and is well regarded within his church community.
2	Until 2020, EDO was able to do so without limitation. 
3	He held working with children assessment notices under the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) (“the WWC Act”). EDO was granted his most recent assessment notice under the WWC Act on 31 May 2019.
4	On 11 May 2020 however, EDO was charged with one charge of “recklessly cause injury” and one charge of “unlawful assault” in relation to incidents involving his 16-year-old daughter which took place in February 2020 and April 2020 respectively. 
5	On the first occasion, EDO’s 16-year-old daughter attempted to call police. EDO prevented her from doing so. 
6	She is clearly a remarkable young woman who nevertheless told him in no uncertain terms that if there were to be any repeat of his actions, she would call police. True to her word, on the second occasion, she did call police.
7	This resulted in the criminal charges outlined above being laid against EDO. Family violence intervention orders were also put in place in favour of both of EDO’s daughters.
8	The “recklessly cause injury” offence gave rise to a category B reassessment under the WWC Act. On 29 July 2020, the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) revoked EDO’s WWC assessment notice and he was given a negative notice under the WWC Act.
9	On 24 August 2020, EDO applied to this Tribunal seeking to set aside the Secretary’s decision.
10	Although the WWC Act was in force when EDO applied to the Tribunal for review of the Secretary’s decision, on 1 February 2021 the WWC Act was repealed. It was substantially re-enacted in Chapter 3 of the Worker Screening Act 2020 (“the WSA”). As a result, EDO’s negative notice essentially became a “WWC exclusion” under the WSA. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review that decision is contained in section 108 of the WSA.
11	In due course on 7 May 2021, the charges of “recklessly cause injury” and “unlawful assault” were brought before the Magistrates’ Court. The charge of “recklessly cause injury” was “struckout/withdrawn” and EDO pleaded guilty to the “unlawful assault” charge.
12	A finding of guilt for the offence of “unlawful assault” is neither a WWC category A offence nor a WWC category B offence. The Tribunal, however, standing in the shoes of the Secretary, has jurisdiction to determine the application as a category C reassessment.
13	The matter proceeded to hearing before me on 15 June 2021 at which time the Secretary opposed EDO’s application. The Secretary contends that EDO is unable to establish that he is a suitable person to work in any type of child-related work.
14	In doing so, the Secretary emphasised that one of the main purposes of the WSA is to assist in protecting children from sexual and physical harm by providing for screening of persons who work with, or care for, children.
15	Section 11 of the WSA provides that when the Tribunal makes a decision or takes an action under that Act, the protection of children from sexual or physical harm must be the paramount consideration.
16	There is no doubt that under the legislation the protection of children is a more important consideration than any other consideration, including as to the individual’s right to work.
17	Section 108 of the WSA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to WWC category C reassessments as follows:
(1)	In a review of a decision to give a WWC exclusion on a WWC category C application or in relation to a WWC category C re-assessment, VCAT must determine whether in the particular circumstances it would be appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance, having regard to any matters to which the Secretary must have regard under section 65(2). 
(2)	VCAT must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance unless VCAT is satisfied that— 
(a)	a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work; or 
(b)	the applicant’s engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. 
(1)	Even if VCAT does not determine under subsection (1) or (2) that it would be appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance, VCAT must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give the clearance unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give the clearance. 
18	I turn first then to a consideration of the factors set out in section 65(2) of the WSA.
Section 65(2) of the WSA
19	Section 65(2) of the WSA requires the Secretary to have regard to: 
(a) 	the nature and gravity of the conduct and its relevance to child-related work;
20	The information provided by Victoria Police described the offence of unlawful assault in the following terms:
the applicant and the victim’s mother were having an argument in relation to transferring money online between accounts. The victim has gone to leave the room and the applicant has pushed the victim to the ground. The victim has fallen backwards and has hit her head on the wall behind her and her glasses coming off. The victim has made a statement to the same effect. The victim’s sister is ten years old and verbally corroborated what has happened. Both the victim and her sister are scared of the applicant and are in fear of what may occur.
21	When asked by Victoria Police why he pushed over his 16-year-old daughter, EDO’s response was:
you know she got angry and she didn’t allow me to speak … she went on and told this is this this, and you think you are like a King, and you expect us to do everything …
22	In her statement to police, EDO’s 16-year-old daughter said:
I went into a fetal [sic] position on the ground, covering my head with my hands … I was screaming ‘get away from me’ … I was screaming, saying ‘I can’t live like this anymore …’
23	After receiving an interim negative notice, EDO wrote to the Secretary in July 2020 explaining the circumstances surrounding the offence. He described stressful work, reduced job hours and having elderly parents at home together with “children’s disobedience” as contributors. 
24	The Secretary contended that, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, EDO shifted the blame for his conduct to his 16-year-old daughter. 
25	In his evidence before me, EDO fully accepted the police version of the facts. He also accepted that his 16-year-old daughter’s recollection of events was an accurate one. He accepted the serious nature of his offending.
26	Despite the charge of recklessly cause injury having been withdrawn, EDO also accepted that the following factual matrix relating to that charge was an accurate one.
27	His 16-year-old daughter had alleged that:
On 26 January 2020 … Dad got really angry, we were arguing across the kitchen island bench … there were two table tennis bats on the bench … Dad picked up the table tennis bats and clapped them together in front of my face 3 or 4 times. I screamed at him to get away, he whacked one of my legs with one of the bats … He repeatedly whacked me on my legs with the bats, so I kicked him in the nuts, then he hit my left wrist with the bat and the bat broke … I grabbed the kitchen landline phone and dialled 000, but Dad grabbed the phone from me and disconnected it.
28	EDO also readily conceded having used physical discipline as a means of correction on other occasions.
29	Clearly, in the context of child-related work, the offending is serious, involving, as it did, direct physical harm against a child in front of a younger sibling.
30	Coupled with the other admitted conduct, it raises grave concerns.
31	A father has a special relationship of trust with his children. He is expected to be a protector rather than the person from whom the children need to be protected. If a person’s own children are not safe from him, real concerns arise with that person engaging in child-related work.
32	A person who wishes to work with children must place children’s needs first. A person who wishes to work with children cannot disregard the physical and/or psychological impact of his conduct on his children. 
33	The Secretary invited me to find that EDO’s offending demonstrates that he resorts to violence in the face of stressful situations, rather than appropriately diffusing conflict. Whilst certainly at the time of his offending this would not have been an unreasonable conclusion to draw, I accept that the interventions which followed his being charged have caused EDO to reflect on his conduct and take action to ensure his conduct will not be repeated. 
34	Whilst historically EDO considered his conduct to be of a correctional nature, I accept that he now fully understands that family violence is completely unacceptable and that he has taken the message seriously and shared it with members of his community. I accept that EDO will never again use physical force to discipline his daughters.
(b) 	the period of time since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
35	The offence occurred on 4 April 2020, some 14 months ago. The Secretary contends that the recency of the offending should weigh against EDO’s application.
36	It is clearly not a long time since the offending took place. 
37	Sometimes, however, the quality of the time since an applicant engaged in conduct is of greater significance than the period of time. Sometimes, much can change in a short time. 
38	In this case, I accept that the life of EDO and his family has changed dramatically.
39	A man who had never before been in trouble: was reported to police by his own daughter; faced a criminal court; had intervention orders made against him; was separated from his family for 10 days; and had his ability to work with children stripped.
40	I accept that these factors led EDO to undertake a dramatic process of self-reflection and re-evaluation.
41	I accept that, in this case, the interventions combined with EDO’s own soul-searching were life changing.
42	EDO’s evidence before me was not, as is often seen in these types of matters, the evidence of a man who felt hardly done by. It was the evidence of a man determined to change, grow, and learn from his mistakes.
43	I accept that after being referred to the police, EDO immediately engaged in counselling.
44	Those closest to him including family members and members of his church became involved in a joint endeavour to heal the damage done and rehabilitate EDO.
45	I was, for reasons I will discuss in greater detail in due course, satisfied that EDO had used the time after his offending to change.
46	I consider the passage of time has been properly used. It is a factor in EDO’s favour. 
(c) 	in the case of an offence, whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for it or a charge for it is still pending; and
47	The charge of recklessly cause injury was withdrawn.
48	EDO was found guilty of the charge of unlawful assault. 
49	No conviction was recorded.
(d) 	in the case of an offence, the sentence imposed for it;
50	EDO was sentenced to a 12-month adjournment, subject to an undertaking that he be of good behaviour during the period of the adjournment. He therefore remains under the adjourned undertaking until 6 May 2022. He also remains prohibited from engaging in family violence by way of an extant family violence intervention order.
51	While the sentence imposed was relatively lenient, the Secretary submitted that this ought not detract from the offence’s direct relevance to the purposes of the WSA and child-related work.
52	I agree that sentences must always be contextualised.
53	I consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the lenient sentence may be indicative of factors which are relevant in the context of worker screening, such as the absence of a previous criminal history and the rehabilitation that has occurred since the offending.
54	It is sometimes submitted by the Secretary in cases such as this, where an individual has not yet completed their sentence, and has current family violence orders against him, that it would be inappropriate to grant the application. 
55	There is of course nothing in the provisions of the WSA that necessitates such an approach to be taken. It is necessary to consider the presentation of an applicant as at the day of the hearing.
56	Whilst I am satisfied that each of these restrictions on EDO provide a further incentive for him to refrain from further family violence, I do not for reasons I will discuss further in due course consider that he now requires any court supervision to achieve this aim.
(e) 	the ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
57	At the time of the offending in April 2020, EDO was a 48-year-old adult. 
58	The primary victim was his 16-year-old daughter, however, his other daughter who witnessed the offending was only 10 years old.
59	EDO was a mature father in a position of trust. His daughters were vulnerable due to the combined factors of age and their relationship. There was, accordingly, a significant age and power imbalance present.
60	Assaulting a child in the family home is family violence. It is never acceptable for a parent to assault a child.
61	Not only did EDO assault his child, but he accepts that on one occasion he prevented her from calling the police, thereby effectively demonstrating the power imbalance between them.
(f) 	whether or not the conduct that constituted the offence has been decriminalised or has ceased to be subject to disciplinary charges since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in it;
62	The offence of unlawful assault has not been decriminalised. 
(g) 	the applicant’s behaviour since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct;
63	The Secretary submitted that not enough time has passed for me to be satisfied that EDO has forever changed his behaviour such that he will no longer react with violence when angry or provoked. The Secretary contended that this factor should not be given favourable weight.
64	I disagree.
65	I consider that EDO’s deep self-reflection since the offending has changed him.
66	There is no evidence that he has committed further instances of family violence. Both EDO and his wife were in tears at the hearing describing how EDO has worked to rebuild the relationship with his daughter(s) and earn their respect.
67	EDO has not re-offended.
68	I accept that EDO prays daily with his family and has identified ways to deal with difficult situations within the family.
69	When challenged, EDO did not brush these matters off. He recognised that he needed to change his own behaviour.
70	He immediately sought professional help. 
71	EDO completed a four-session Anger Management Course run by Cognitive Principle Therapy Pty Ltd within nine days of the assault. 
72	Although the Secretary submitted that the course’s efficacy remains to be tested, I heard positive evidence from Mr Robert McInnes who gave evidence that he found EDO to be remorseful and wanting to change. He described the course as a combination of in-person and online modules surrounding trust, acceptance and commitment to change, coupled with communication and values. Mr McInnes also spoke with EDO’s 16-year-old daughter who he said wanted her father home.
73	EDO and his family commenced and continue to engage in regular counselling with Paster Robin Joshua of New Covenant Pentecostal Church. 
74	The Secretary queried the nature and purpose of that counselling.
75	I heard evidence from Assistant Pastor Nirmalan Thiagaratnam who described the purposes of such counselling as assisting families to communicate. He gave evidence that, although it is Pastor Joshua who convenes the counselling, he himself has regular contact with the family and they are communicating and conversing well and doing things together.
76	I also heard evidence from EDO’s wife. She gave evidence that the consequences of EDO’s conduct have shaken the whole family. I fully accepted her emotional evidence that the family regularly have family discussions and that EDO now understands the importance of hearing about and engaging with his children’s points of view. I accepted her evidence that he has learnt a significant lesson and does not want to repeat the behaviour. 
77	I accepted her evidence that the family wishes to be happy and value each other. I accepted her evidence that when EDO returned to the family home, the family focussed on solving their problems together as a family. I accept that the family is a happier and stronger unit who sit down together to resolve issues. The evidence was powerful evidence of a family working together, following the misconduct of one of its members who accepted the wrongfulness of his actions.
78	I heard further supportive evidence from EDO’s brother-in-law also describing positive change. He described how EDO had used the time productively to reflect on his conduct. It was his observation that EDO was remorseful and wanting to make amends. He gave evidence that EDO listens and reflects, and that the family dynamic has greatly improved. 
79	Perhaps however, the most persuasive evidence came from EDO himself. EDO impressed me as a man who had genuinely reflected on his conduct and taken onboard the advice and counselling offered by others.
80	I accepted his evidence that he has made a conscious ongoing decision to communicate with his daughters as equal participants in the conversation and that he has also apologised to each member of his family. I accepted his proudly given evidence that his 16-year-old daughter had told him that she did not previously feel she could approach him to talk through issues but now feels she can.
81	EDO did not overstate his evidence. He gave evidence that the family is still recovering. I accepted this as a genuine acceptance on his part that he will need to continue to prove to his family that he is a changed man.
82	I also accepted EDO’s evidence that he has taken his new learnings to others outside his own family unit. I accepted that he has counselled others in his community about the importance of never resorting to physical or emotional violence within the family unit. He described the advice he had given to others about better ways of dealing with high emotion situations.
83	EDO fully accepted that he had to completely change. He fully acknowledged that any descriptions given by his daughter about him in the past were correct. He gave evidence that he accepted that over the years he had made many mistakes. He was clear, however, that there would be no more going back to the old ways. I accepted his evidence as genuine.
84	I accepted that the 10 days during which he was required to absent himself from the family home had a dramatic impact on him which forced him to reflect on family violence and how his conduct impacts others. I accept that he resolved to change.
(h) 	the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant;
85	Ultimately, I consider the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by EDO to be a minimal one.
86	I found the evidence given by EDO and his witnesses to be impressive and honest.
87	I accept that EDO has taken these matters extremely seriously. He was noticeably moved when giving his evidence and reflecting on his conduct and its potential to destroy his family unit.
88	I accept that he has apologised to his family for his conduct.
89	I accept that he now utilises the techniques he has learnt to calm down and diffuse situations.
90	I accept that he and his family are now facing life together as a united team. I accept that they come together for meals and to discuss issues that arise between them and that they read the bible and pray together.
91	I was impressed by his evidence that he wants his whole family to feel safe. 
92	Although I declined to hear evidence from his 16-year-old daughter, following objections raised by the Secretary, I accept that she has told EDO that she is very happy now and feels that her father is now approachable.
93	It was pleasing to hear. I accept that the family are recovering together. 
94	These comments are not intended to undermine in any way EDO’s personal responsibility for his own actions. Rather, I accept that EDO recognises the impact of his actions for the entire family and that the whole family dynamic needed to change and be renegotiated. I accept that his former more patriarchal approach to the family has been turned on its head, leading EDO not only to apologise to his family but change his methods of conducting himself with and around them.
95	I was further encouraged when hearing the evidence of EDO that he has taken the message into the community. I accepted his evidence that there are other families in the community grappling with similar issues that he feels he can now help. I accept that he has provided guidance to other families that they cannot physically discipline children and that he has passed on his learnings as to other means of handling disputes.
96	I accepted his evidence that he is now more confident and educated and that he can add value to the community.
97	I accept that EDO has genuinely reflected on and changed his behaviour. He spoke about the need to calm down and speak with children and the need to give a proportionate response.
98	I do not make these findings through rose-coloured glasses. I accept that there were several other incidents described in the materials which EDO said he would now handle differently. Those incidents were not the subject of charges. I accept that EDO has changed the manner in which he operates within the family. 
99	I accept that EDO now has mechanisms in place for recognising when personal frustration is brewing, and controlling and changing his responses.
100	I accept the evidence given by those around him who have witnessed the change. 
101	I accept that he has opened his eyes to his own behaviour and its impact on others.
102	I accept that his previously held views about “correction” have been changed to an understanding that abuse and/or physical harm and language is not correction – it is family violence.
103	I am satisfied on the material before me that the threat of harm posed by EDO to a child is now minimal.
104	I accept that EDO has demonstrated sound insight into his offending, analysed why the offending occurred, and put strategies in place to avoid further offending.
(i) 	any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application; 
105	Although EDO did not realise that he needed to have all of his character witnesses present at the hearing, he was able to quickly arrange for them to give evidence via videolink. It was a credit to him that not only did each make himself available at short notice, but that each then gave very positive evidence on behalf of EDO.
106	EDO gave evidence that he has been a Sunday school teacher for more than 25 years.
(j) 	any other matter that the Secretary considers relevant to the application.
107	I accept that EDO would love to return to Sunday school duties.
108	Whilst of course this does not and cannot take precedence over the need to protect children from physical or sexual harm, it is a relevant consideration.
Conclusion
109	Having regard to the above matters and circumstances, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to refuse to give EDO a WWC clearance.
110	This, however, does not finally determine the matter.
Section 108(2)(a) – the reasonable person test
111	Under section 108(2)(a) of the WSA I must determine that it is appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance to EDO unless satisfied that:
(a)	a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work; or
(b)	the applicant’s engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.
112	It was submitted by the Secretary that, even if I found that EDO does not pose an unjustifiable risk to children, his application should nevertheless fail because the “reasonable person test” does not favour the grant of a WWC clearance in this case.
113	How the Tribunal ought to approach the “reasonable person test” was considered by Judge McNamara VP in VQB v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VCAT 789 at [36] as follows:
A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind, thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area in some over-optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.
114	The reasonable person test is an objective one, which relies on a reasonable person having knowledge of all facts and surrounding circumstances.
115	It was contended by the Secretary that a reasonable person would not allow their child to have direct contact with EDO while engaged in child-related work.
116	The Secretary contended that the reasonable person would be gravely concerned that there is a current (albeit limited) family violence intervention order against EDO to protect his own children.
117	In the circumstances of this case, I consider that a reasonable person would see the order as another protective layer and constant reminder to EDO of the consequences of his former actions. The reasonable person would not see the order as forever defining EDO, but rather as a reflection of the person he appeared to be at the time of the making of the order. The reasonable person would not consider him to be the same person. 
118	The Secretary contended that the reasonable person would reject any claims made by EDO that any of his actions were disciplinary in nature.
119	I consider that the reasonable person would understand that positions can change over time. The reasonable person would accept that, whilst EDO may previously have seen his actions as disciplinary, the reasonable person would also now accept that EDO has changed his belief system to one more in keeping with modern attitudes. The reasonable person would accept the evidence given by EDO and his witnesses to this effect.
120	It was submitted by the Secretary that EDO does not genuinely know the difference between appropriate discipline and physical abuse and that the reasonable person would not feel confident that EDO had sufficiently reformed his behaviour, in the context of seemingly only knowing about “family violence” for the last 14 months and, by corollary, not knowing about it for 48 years.
121	I disagree. I consider that the reasonable person would understand that people can change, particularly where they are prepared to revisit previously held beliefs.
122	Views on discipling children have changed dramatically in recent years. Many over the age of 45 will nevertheless recall the existence of physical “discipline” in the school and/or home. Some debate still continues as to whether any form of physical discipline is acceptable. I accept that EDO now considers that no form of physical discipline is ever acceptable. I accept that he will live his life accordingly and that the reasonable person would accept that he will.
123	It was submitted by the Secretary that the reasonable person would not trust that their child would be – or would feel – safe if they were to misbehave while under EDO’s supervision or in his care.
124	The reasonable person must be reasonable. There is no basis upon which the reasonable person could form this belief. The reasonable person would understand that EDO had held assessment notices to work with children for many years without incident.
125	The reasonable person would draw comfort from EDO’s recent experience and desire to entrench positive behaviour towards his own children.
126	It was submitted by the Secretary that the reasonable person would draw no comfort from the character references provided by EDO’s family in circumstances where EDO’s wife and daughters have been involved in instances of abuse.
127	It is sometimes difficult in cases such as this when individuals who were victims and/or potential secondary victims give evidence. There are sometimes real concerns that the evidence being given is not genuine, but conversely another potential form of coercion.
128	The reasonable person cannot however generalise. They must look to the objective facts. 
129	In this case, they would see that the women surrounding EDO strongly condemn abusive behaviour. It does not follow that because they love and support him that their evidence is flawed and not to be accepted.
130	EDO shook with tears of remorse as his wife gave her evidence. Hers was strong and persuasive evidence. I accept that, in giving her evidence, she was supporting her husband as he now is, yet recognising and articulating the flaws as they previously existed. 
131	I considered that the women in EDO’s life were not mechanically supporting him or being coerced into supporting him. Their genuine evidence and supportive written material reflected on their observed changes in him.
132	The reasonable person would accept the evidence and encourage EDO to be grateful for the supports around him which will enable him to continue to lead a successful life surrounded by his family. The reasonable person would be well aware that this is a family that demands respect.
The any type of child-related work test
133	The Secretary submitted that I ought not be satisfied that EDO’s engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. The Secretary urged me to “proceed cautiously and conservatively” and emphasised the paramount objective under the WSA. The Secretary submitted that there was no material before me to give comfort. 
134	I disagree. I am satisfied that EDO no longer poses a risk to children for the reasons already articulated. I am satisfied that he is safe to work with children in any type of child-related work.
The public interest test
135	It was submitted by the Secretary that I ought not be satisfied that it is in the public interest to give EDO a WWC clearance on the basis that, where there is a risk that an applicant will cause harm to a child if he reacts angrily, the public interest will not favour the grant of the WWC clearance.
136	I do not consider that there is an ongoing risk that EDO will react inappropriately in relation to a child.
137	The Secretary nevertheless submitted that, in any case, EDO is not a role model to children, considering his admitted lack of knowledge prior to April 2020 of “family violence” and his abuse of his daughter. 
138	I disagree. For reasons I have already articulated, I have found that EDO does now possess a sound understanding of family violence and its devastating implications for families. I consider that EDO has the potential to be an excellent role model for children.
139	Finally, the Secretary submitted that the community would not be disadvantaged if EDO is not granted a WWC clearance where he has opportunities to continue to be engaged with his church and there is no evidence that the church relies solely on EDO to teach Sunday school.
140	Once again, I disagree. It is in the public interest for an individual to contribute to society in any way he can when he does not pose an unjustifiable risk to children.
Conclusion 
141	I will set aside the decision of the Secretary and order the Secretary to give EDO a WWC clearance under the WSA.

H. Lambrick
Deputy President