But then, in August 2021, came the accusation. Sexual intercourse without consent.

She claimed he’d beaten her up and forced her to have sex against her will. He said she’d come on to him at a party and initiated the whole thing.

STRICT

He was charged and sent to jail for a couple of nights, before being let out on strict bail conditions.

Eighteen months later a six-week court case resulted in a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

It was revealed in court that his accuser had lied consistently to the court and police.

But it didn’t end there for this family. Despite the not-guilty verdict, Michael discovered there was a whole new phase of punishment about to kick in. Bureaucratic punishment.

Even though the lifesaving organisation had kept his position open, Michael needed his “WWCC” – his working with children check was cancelled when he was arrested.

The family discovered that the bureaucrats who administer the WWCC – from the Office of the Children’s Guardian – set themselves up as another judge and jury.

They take it upon themselves to decide if this young man should be kept away from children.

Michael plunged into despair as this mob spent months putting him through a series of phone interviews, whilst the deadline for resuming his job slipped away.

In stepped Michael’s dad, a professional man well versed in bureaucratese, who placated the officer in charge, digging out court transcripts, references and detailed chronology of events.

Seven months later, the officer rang to announce that Michael would receive the precious certificate. She told him that without his dogged dad, Michael most likely would never have received it.

How sickening is that? It turns out these bureaucrats have power to decide whether a person can resume work – lifeguards, teachers, paralegals, doctors, you name it.

Endless professions in Australia now require anonymous strangers to determine whether these men are safe around children. And they almost always err on the side of caution.

And it’s happening everywhere.

Ros Burnett is a senior research associate at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford who has published a series of studies on the impact of false allegations of abuse.

One study, which involved 30 people who were investigated but never charged, or charged but then acquitted, found many who “faced impassable barriers against working with children or vulnerable adults ever again”.

CARING

The upshot is “damaged reputations and ruined careers. Innocent men and women are left without a career, while institutions lose skilled and caring employees,” reported Ms Burnett and her colleagues.

I’ve talked to many families whose sons had their careers destroyed, even after an allegation was found to be false in court.

Well-qualified young men have been forced to shelve life plans to become a pharmacist, or chiropractor, or paramedic, after authorities refused to issue the required certificate.

Five years ago, I tweeted about the “poor, sad face” of a teacher shown in a newspaper story leaving court after being acquitted of all 13 charges of sexually assaulting three schoolgirls. I suggested he would never recover from this ordeal.

That teacher contacted me and now sends occasional updates on the ongoing indignities he has suffered.

It’s just unconscionable how bureaucrats have made him jump through hoops.

Like the phone call from a case officer from the Office of Children’s Guardian, which came out of the blue sometime after he’d applied for the WWCC. He received the call whilst sitting on a bus surrounded by people.

The former teacher reports: “She demanded that I explain why I should have the certificate back. Why did the girls make their accusations? What behaviour had I been doing that was wrong? I asked if I could set a time to speak later and in private. The lady said this was my only chance to explain. I received a letter not long after rejecting my application.”