Senior AFL figure helps repeat sex offender win permit to work with kids
A repeat sex offender can resume umpiring junior footy matches after “a very senior person in the AFL” gave him a glowing reference.
South East
Don't miss out on the headlines from South East . Followed categories will be added to My News.
A repeat sex offender can resume umpiring junior footy matches after “a very senior person in the AFL” gave him a glowing reference.
But the public is not allowed to know who the offender is because of a gag order protecting his identity for the rest of his life — to save him from “embarrassment”.
The name of the AFL figure has also been kept secret by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
MORE NEWS
NO JAIL FOR TEACHER WHO MOLESTED STUDENT ON SCHOOL TRIP
PAEDOPHILE TEACHER JAILED FOR RAPING BOYS
SEX CREEP DAD USED SNAPCHAT TO GROOM TEEN
An AFL spokesman said it would not comment last night.
VCAT documents reveal the 57-year-old pervert — referred to as MFK — has a long history of offending, including sexual penetration of a minor, stalking and masturbating in public.
But the tribunal agreed he could have a working with children permit on the basis he did not “pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children”.
In his judgment this week, VCAT deputy president Ian Proctor said: “A very senior person in the AFL gave a reference for MFK.
“He appeared at VCAT in 2013 to give evidence on MFK’s behalf, fully understanding MFK’s history.
“By way of reference and through his oral evidence before me in this proceeding, this referee strongly supported MFK being given an assessment notice.”
Testifying before VCAT, the AFL figure said he had known the man for 20 years.
“He regards MFK as a stalwart in the sport. He said that if there was concern about MFK’s conduct over the years in that context, he would know about it,” Mr Proctor said.
“He described MFK as amazingly honest and open about his past difficulties.”
The Herald Sun cannot name the umpire because of a VCAT suppression order.
The order was granted, in part, because releasing his identity would cause “undue distress or embarrassment to the applicant as the proceeding relates to sexual conduct”.
In a separate, unsuccessful appeal in 2013, the AFL figure was the only witness called by the man.
He described him as a “caring, down-to-earth, easygoing and well-liked person in his local community, with a wide social network”.
In 1984, the man was convicted of sexual penetration of a female under the age of 16.
He said he had been in a relationship with the 15-year-old girl but believed she was older.
An active junior and senior football umpire and “mentor” to young players, he was refused a working with children permit in 2009 when the AFL introduced a crackdown, but he successfully appealed that decision to VCAT.
The man lost the permit after being convicted of exposing himself to a woman while he sat in his car in 2010.
He asked her if she wanted a lift then followed her in his car, later offering her $20 in exchange for sex.
He was charged and sentenced to a 24-month community corrections order and placed on the sex offenders register.
He was also charged with wilful and obscene exposure in public in 2013, with police alleging he was masturbating in a public park after a female witness reported him.
The man claimed he had been urinating.
The case was dismissed by a magistrate.
In his unsuccessful 2013 appeal for a permit, VCAT ruled he posed a “more general risk of uncontrolled, inappropriate and harmful behaviour”.
But Mr Proctor granted the application this time because he found “no likelihood of future threat to a child by him”.
“I am satisfied the reasonable person would allow his or her child to have unsupervised direct contact with (the man) while he was engaged in any type of child-related work,” he said.
“He repeatedly emphasised that he was not a paedophile and that he therefore did not pose a risk to children.
“Public interest is not in my view served by saying once a person has taken a wrong turn, that person can never be redeemed.”
Mr Proctor said the protection of children from sexual and physical harm was the paramount consideration in his decision.