While it is legally addressing church policy, you have to balance that with the need to take steps to ensure the safety of unsuspecting church children (Conti in this case). No freedom is absolute. The Founding Fathers got sick of having to support the Church of England via taxes and official membership which is why we wrote that into our constitution to begin with (I'm American).
Interesting that the Court only addressed the issue of having a molester participate in church sponsored activities as it relates to protecting the congregation's children. I wonder if the WTS would have been found liable in a case where a molester working alone in service (and yes I've worked streets by myself so it happens) attacked a householder. After all, it's a church sponsored activity with complete direction (territory maps, direction on which streets to work in many cases by whoever is taking the group out). I wonder if this duty to supervise will extend to harm suffered from a non-church member?
If I were the WTS, I'd simply issue a BOE letter stating anyone found guilty of molestation by either a JC or a court of law, could not participate in the door to door work. I'm not sure I'd let them even run the trolly or do street work. You are talking a very small number of individuals that is exposing them to a significant legal liability. But then again, I wouldn't ever let someone like that serve in a position of oversight and we know they allow that as well. Really doesn't make any sense to me.