The test for a criminal conviction is “beyond reasonable doubt”. This is notoriously hard to prove with rape allegations, which usually have no independent witnesses and often no conclusive physical evidence. Most cases are “he said/she said”, and in these circumstances convictions are very unlikely.

Most sexual assaults are not reported to police. Of those that are, most don’t get to trial. There are far, far more lives ruined by actual sexual assault than by baseless allegations of sexual assault.

Further, in circumstances other than a criminal trial, “beyond reasonable doubt” in often not the appropriate criterion. In the Lehrmann defamation case, for example, the judge decided that Lehrmann was a rapist “on the balance of probabilities”. I note Arndt seems not to have retracted her frequently expressed support for this grub.

In the case of a Working With Children Certificate, the criteria are – rightly – different again. Here in WA, the primary criterion is “the best interests of the child”, not the career aspirations of the applicant. So even if there is a less than 50% chance that an accused sex offender is actually guilty, and even if they have been found not guilty in a court, authorities should be extremely wary about issuing a certificate to someone who has been prosecuted for rape.

Arndt seems to be suggesting that if someone has been found not guilty of rape then officials have no business refusing them a Working With Children Certificate. Think about that.

If the case of “Michael” really did unfold as Arndt describes (and given her past history of one-sided narratives I reserve judgement), then I am sorry for his troubles and pleased at the outcome.

But I also applaud the Office of Children’s Guardian for doing its job. Arndt bemoans the public servants who “take it upon themselves to do their bit to safeguard the community from these “predators”, with no apparent consideration of fair treatment for the people concerned”. Safeguarding the community from potential “predators” is exactly what they are supposed to do.

Rhian

Scanning the news, I’m very heartened to read that it’s only white Anglos to be feared; and very refreshing to note also, that never do Aboriginals feature in rape trials, and very interestingly., never a Muslim either.

Time to crawl back into your log, it’s winter this weekend; Hibernation!

Rhian,
You're making it too obvious that you're trying to justify yourself as a bureaucrat ! Present some evidence that your lot could actually be of benefit to society instead of the other way round. From what I experience, witness, see/hear in the media bureaucracy causes more problems than it solves. There are many good & decent public servants but the bureaudroids are hell-bent on making their efforts futile ! The evidence is all around us. Perform your duties as is appropriate. Hell, even us old age pensioners contribute more to society than bureaucrats.

Indyvidual,

I am now retired but have spent about equal amounts of time in my working life in the private, not-for-profit and public sectors. All have a role to play in a prosperous mixed economy such as Australia’s – including especially the public servants Arndt is attacking, who try to keep our children safe from sexual predators.

The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse – another bunch of bureaucrats I greatly admire - specifically recommended that in assessing Working With Children Certificates, regulators should take account of criminal history, including charges that led to acquittals or quashed convictions.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_working_with_children_checks_report.pdf

I am now also a grandmother. I do not want someone who has been prosecuted for rape but where the case could not be proved to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” to also be given the benefit of the doubt in applying for a Working with Children Certificate, which is what Ardnt appears to be advocating. I certainly don’t want such a person caring for my own grandchildren unless they have also been subject to detailed scrutiny to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that they are not a potential threat to their charges.

Rhian,
What I'd like to have explained one day is, why is it that all decisions made by authority are from people with higher than basic education end in one fiasco or another ? We're constantly reminded that "educated" people are to be respected if not admired yet they're the ones stuffing up at every turn. Who on Earth are normal people to rely on when we can't rely on those in authority ? Wouldn't you agree that the authorities need cleansing first before they come down on the victims of their policies ? I'm certainly not saying that all Public Servants are lacking in their performance but the number of them actually performing well is near miniscule !
Authorities fail the community at an alarming rate & seeing that the authorities are made up of Public Servants I'm sure you'd agree a change, even a forced one is well overdue !

Rhian,
I can see this whole debate being an attack on Conservatism by misguided Leftist idealists who are trying to justify their incidental presence.