1. The decision under review is varied:
   1. The Tribunal determines the applicant is not guilty of breaching rule 86(ah) of the Greyhounds Australasian Rules.
   2. The Tribunal determines the applicant is guilty of breaching Rule 86(o) of the Greyhounds Australasian Rules.
2. On or before 17 May 2016, the respondent is to file and serve submissions concerning penalty under the Greyhounds Australasian Rules.
3. On or before 27 May 2016 the applicant is to file and serve a submission in response.
4. On or before 3 June 2016 the respondent may file and serve a submission in reply.
5. Unless either party makes a contrary submission, the Tribunal intends to decide penalty without a further hearing.

1. Mr David Dawson is a registered greyhound trainer. On 12 January 2016, the Stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria (the Stewards) charged him with on 20 November 2015 breaching rules 86(q), 86(ah) and 86(o) of the Greyhounds Australasian Rules (the Rules). The charges concerned his and Mr Tony Vass' conduct at the Dranum Slip Track that day. Mr Vass was in November 2015, and remains, disqualified from greyhound training.[1]
2. The Stewards found Mr Dawson guilty of beaching rule 86(q) and disqualified him for 12 months. Mr Dawson appealed the disqualification to the GRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (the Board).
3. Under Rule 47.1 of the GRV Local Rules, breaches of rules 86(ah) and 86(o) are deemed serious offences, which the Board is to hear. The Board heard Mr Dawson's appeal against the Steward's decision and the other charges together. Mr Dawson pleaded not guilty to each charge.
4. On 2 March 2016, the Board found Mr Dawson not guilty of breaching 86(q) and guilty of breaching the other two charges. It disqualified him for 12 months, effective 7 March 2016.
5. On 9 March 2016, VCAT received Mr Dawson's application, under s 83OH of the Act, for review of the Board's decision. On 16 March 2016, VCAT stayed Mr Dawson's disqualification until further order of the Tribunal. On 15 April 2016, I heard the proceeding.
6. The parties agreed it was appropriate to rely on evidence that had been before the Stewards and the Board, including transcript, video footage, witness statements, statutory declarations, documents and photographs. Mr Ron Matthews, Steward, gave evidence at the VCAT hearing. Both parties were legally represented. I reserved my decision.

1. On 12 January 2016, Mr Matthews signed each of the two charges that were before VCAT.

The Stewards charge [Mr Dawson] with a breach of Greyhounds Australasia Rule 86 (ah) which reads as follows:

A person (including an official) shall be guilty of an offence if the person-

(ah) being a registered person or person associated with greyhound racing, associates with a disqualified person for the purposes of greyhound racing;

In that you did on 20 November 2015, being a registered person, associate with a disqualified person namely Mr Tony Vass, for the purposes of greyhound racing to wit you allowed him to exercise a brindle coloured greyhound at a greyhound training facility known as the Darnum Slip Track (a greyhound training facility located at Pedder St, Darnum and managed by the Warragul Greyhound Racing Club). [2]

The Stewards charge [Mr Dawson] with a breach of Greyhounds Australasia Rule 86(o) which reads as follows:

A person (including an official) shall be guilty of an offence if the person-

(o) has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing, which, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Controlling Body, as the case may be, is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct. [3]

In that you did on 20 November 2015, in relation to greyhound racing do a thing, which in the opinion of the Stewards was improper or constitutes misconduct to wit you allowed a person, namely Mr Tony Vass, who you knew to be a disqualified person under the Greyhounds Australasia Rules, to enter and remain on a greyhound training facility known as the Darnum Slip Track (a greyhound training facility located at Pedder St, Darnum and managed by the Warragul Greyhound Racing Club).

1. During the VCAT hearing, it was conceded it was not proven Mr Dawson allowed Mr Vass "to enter" the Darnum Slip Track (the Track). At the time, the Track gate was unlocked. Various people were using it. The evidence did not show Mr Dawson allowing entrance. He had no legal authority to prevent Mr Vass entering. In effect, the particulars of the charge were amended to be that Mr Dawson allowed Mr Vass "to remain on" the Track, in the sense that Mr Dawson failed to immediately leave when Mr Vass came onto the Track.
2. It was conceded the charges related to the presence of Mr Dawson and Mr Vass within the Track, not their presence in the preparation yard immediately outside the Track gate and in the Track car park (see below).

1. In Karakatsanis v Racing Victoria Limited [2013] VSCA 305; (2013) 306 ALR 125 [38] - [39] (Osborne and Beach JJA), the Court of Appeal approved a formulation of Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 as it applies to tribunals in the following terms:

The notion of 'inexact proof, and indefinite testimony or indirect references ... needs to be translated to a comfortable level of satisfaction, fairly and properly arrived at, commensurate with the gravity of the charge, achieved in accordance with fair processes appropriate to and adopted by such a body.

1. The Darnum Slip Track (the Track) is at Pedder Street, Darnum. It is an approximately 300 metre long by 10 metre wide rectangle of dirt enclosed by a high steel fence with a low wire fence running the 300 metres down the middle of it. It is used to run greyhounds up and down each of the tracks. Some trainers run dogs up and down at the same time to encourage them to run.
2. The Warragul Greyhound Racing Club manages the Track. Mr Dawson has membership rights. This includes him having a key to the Track.
3. The Track rules, which Mr Dawson signed, say in part:

The [Track] is a licensed greyhound training facility and as such falls under the jurisdiction of Greyhound Australasia Rules and Greyhound Racing Victoria Rules of greyhound racing. ...

• All Gold members of WGRC [Mr Dawson is one] will be issued with an access key to the track upon payment of the membership fee and the signing of this form. Key holders of the only persons authorised to use the track.
• ...
• All gates must be locked after use.
• Trainers are responsible for cleaning up after their dog(s) at all times. ...

1. Twice a day, two to four times a week, Mr Dawson visits the Track and trains greyhounds. Among the dogs he trains are registered greyhounds owned by Mr Vass's partner.
2. I discuss below why I rejected his submission that, relevant to the charges, he exercised but did not train greyhounds at the Track.

1. I accepted Mr Dawson's evidence, corroborated by surveillance footage, that he takes one dog at a time onto the Track and exercises it for a few minutes before returning it to his trailer and bringing another dog onto the Track for the same routine. He does this alone, not requiring anyone else's assistance.
2. Unknown to Mr Dawson and Mr Vass, Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) had engaged private investigators to take surveillance video of them.
3. On Friday 20 November 2015, an investigator followed Mr Dawson to the Track. The investigator took a position about 250 metres away. He filmed hidden by the trees while wearing camouflage clothes.
4. At 9:58 am, Mr Dawson arrived at the Track with dogs in a trailer. This is seen on what I refer to as Camera 1 footage (C1). Other greyhound trainers were present. Mr Dawson was easily identified by his abundant white hair.
5. He spent a little time speaking with a Mr and Ms Mason, before taking a dog onto the Track.
6. The investigator tasked with surveilling Mr Vass received information, which resulted in him taking video about 300 metres from the Track. He took the Camera 2 footage (C2).
7. Concerning the footage from the cameras, each camera shows time progressing as noted below. As acknowledged by Mr Matthews, the camera times were not synchronised. Significant footage has been edited out. C1 shows time starting at 9:58:05 and ending at 10:51:11 (53 minutes). Only 9 minutes 52 seconds was provided as evidence. C2 shows times starting at 10:35 and ending at 10:52 (18 minutes). Only 6 minutes 25 seconds of footage was provided as evidence. According to GRV, the deleted footage was not relevant to the proceeding. I took that to mean that the deleted footage showed neither Mr Dawson nor Mr Vass.
8. At 10:26 am (C1) (about 30 minutes after Mr Dawson arrived), Mr Vass arrived in the Track car park. He was easily identified by his red sleeveless jacket. Mr Vass had a brindle coloured greyhound with him in his car. In his statutory declaration dated 3 February 2016, Mr Vass claimed the dog was not registered. There was no evidence as to its identity or registration status.
9. It is convenient to note here, Mr Dawson was aware Mr Vass was disqualified from training. He was aware of the rules against associating with a disqualified trainer.[4]
10. Mr Vass's motivation for visiting the Track is unclear.
11. I rejected his evidence (by statutory declaration), that he had been going to visit Mr Trevor Alan who lived near to Track with his brindle dog in the car when he noticed a person who appeared to be hiding behind trees.
12. According to Mr Vass, he saw Mr Dawson's car and trailer and stopped to alert him of suspicious activity. He said he was concerned the person may have intended to harm Mr Dawson and/or his dogs.
13. Mr Vass made no mention of telling Mr Dawson about the suspicious person nor of any reaction to the news. At the Stewards Inquiry on 5 January 2016, Mr Dawson made no mention of Mr Vass warning him of a person hiding in the trees. Mr Vass gave the evidence concerning suspicious activity after he became aware surveillance footage existed.
14. Ms Pauline Bailey was at the Track that morning. She gave evidence that neither Mr Dawson nor Mr Vass said anything to her or her partner about a suspicious person in the trees. Mr Gerrie Sneyders was driving past and briefly stopped to speak to Mr Dawson, who made no mention of this.
15. Returning to Mr Vass' statutory declaration, he claimed he was on the way to visit Mr Trevor Alan, because both Mr Alan and Mr Sneyders "regularly buy my product and also to collect any empty containers that I re-use". However, according to Mr Alan's evidence at the Inquiry, while he used to buy a vitamin product from Mr Vass, he had not done so for a "long while". He was not expecting a visit.
16. That said, there was no evidence on which to find Mr Dawson invited Mr Vass that morning. Mr Dawson denied that, saying Mr Vass just turned up.[5] He also said that if there had not been a queue at the Track that morning, by the time Mr Vass arrived he would have taken all his dogs onto the Track and have left.
17. At the Stewards' Inquiry, until Mr Dawson was shown the video footage, Mr Dawson claimed not to recollect Mr Vass being on the Track that morning.[6] He maintained that position.
18. Returning to the surveillance footage, at 10:29 am (C1) Mr Vass is standing outside the Track, adjacent to the wire gate that encloses it. Mr Dawson comes out of the Track gate. They have a quick conversation. Within a minute Mr Dawson is back inside the Track, Mr Vass is outside. At 10:31 am (C1), Mr Dawson moves away from Mr Vass, down what I will refer to as the 'close run', being the half of the Track immediately adjacent to the gate. I refer to the other half of the Track as the 'far (from the gate) run'.
19. Here, about seven minutes (C1) of footage is edited out.
20. At 10:38:37 (C1), Mr Vass is inside the Track in the close run. He appears to be talking to someone. Mr Dawson comes into view, they briefly talk further. While the footage is grainy, it appears that at 10:39:00 (C1), Mr Vass is pointing at something up the Track. They both leave the Track at 10:39:23 (C1). According to C1, this sequence takes 46 seconds.

1. Inquiry transcript recorded this exchange about whether Mr Dawson asked Mr Vass to leave:[7]

Chairman: So you agree that that's Tony on the track?

Mr Dawson: That's [inaudible] and that's me there.

Mr Dawson: Well I probably have at this stage. I don't know that we - - I don't even remember him being there.

Chairman: So you can't remember him going on there. What you think should happen when he goes on there? ... You know that he's a disqualified person. ... What should you have said?

Mr Dawson: Well, I'm not going to go oh, shit, and kick him up the bum sort of thing, clear out, clear out and whatever. I mean we're mates for many, many, many years ...

Mr Dawson: And that's the sort of thing, you know. The fact that he was there I would have said you shouldn't be here, go outside or something at one stage. And that's about as far as would - - I'm not going to grab him by the shirt and scruff his neck and kick him out. I mean it's not - - you know, it would be like, you know? I would have told him to get out but that's about it, you know.

Chairman: But the footage at one stage there, you've both got greyhounds on either side of the fence. That's not the sign of someone telling someone to get out.

Mr Dawson: No, well, I don't know why - - he would have had the dog with him and that's probably what he said when he first walked in because I was on the track obviously when he first walked in and then walked down and he would have said no, I've got a dog in the car or something. Can I give it a run?

1. Returning to the footage, here, about six minutes of (C1) footage is edited out.
2. At 10:45:46 (C1), Mr Vass is alone in the close run with a brindle dog. He has a black fluffy toy. He collars the dog and leaves the Track (10:46:03 - C1) into the car park. According to C1, this sequence takes 17 seconds. Immediately after that (10:46:12 - C1), Mr Dawson comes into view leaving the far run to cross the close run exiting through the gate through which Mr Vass has just exited. They have been within the Track, each in one of the runs. There is no vision of them interacting.
3. During the Inquiry, when shown this footage Mr Dawson said he had probably been on the far Track for three or four minutes as that was the usual time he with a dog on a given day.[9] Transcript also recorded:[10]

Mr Coulhoun: It would appear at that particular time you are both individually in charge of separate dogs on that track.

Mr Dawson: Yeah yeah. Whether it would - - my guess is that he's brought the dog and said can I run one with him or something, and I guess that's probably it. I don't - - yeah. Because he - - I don't - - I never use the right-hand side with my dogs. I do them one at a time like this, up and down and up and down and just play around with them, as you can see.

Chairman: So in - - if you - - what did you say before? You said that he may have said can I exercise a dog with you. Is that training a greyhound, Dave?

1. At the Board hearing, concerning why he was on the far Track, when his evidence was he always trains on the close Track, and Mr Vass was on the close Track, transcript records:[11]

Mr Hutchinson: Why would you have been on that side with that dog?

Mr Dawson: Probably because Mr Vass said he wanted to use one side - -

Mr Hutchinson: So basically you allowed him [inaudible] to use that side?

Mr Dawson: I don't know, I don't know. It's not my normal practice to do that.

Mr Hutchinson: It's not your normal practice to go on that side and you went on the far side. It's just coincidental that Mr Vass was using the other side, so that hasn't [inaudible]?

Mr Hutchinson: I'm just trying to understand why on that occasion you use the far side of the track when you don't use the far side of the track?

Mr Dawson: Yeah, I don't know. I never really knew - - until I saw that video, I honestly had no recollection of anything.

1. During later questioning at the Board hearing of Mr Dawson by Mr Hooper:[12]

Mr Hooper: Mr Dawson, Mr Hutchinson was just asking you some questions about you being on one side of the slip track and Mr Vass being on the other side of the slip track. Do you recall if the dogs were running up the slip track together?

Mr Hooper: They weren't exercising one another up the slip track?

Mr Dawson: They might have. Like they might have run together. My dog, I know was on season, and that's why - - she finished racing on the first of November, and she was on season and being rehomed et cetera. That was her program, retired, be rehomed, and that's what happened and yeah, and I don't know about this to Vass's dog. I don't know what it was.

1. C2 includes another 27 seconds of footage. This includes Mr Dawson and Mr Vass within the Track. [13] At 10:35 (C2), Mr Vass is perhaps looking in the direction of C2. However, he makes no particular reaction and picks up something on a string and starts waving it about. While no dog is visible, more likely than not his behaviour is directed at a dog which is not in view. Mr Dawson is not visible.
2. Board hearing transcript records:

Chairman: So it's gone actually back to 10:35 am now and Tony is inside the track on the - - we will say the left hand side looking down towards the gate, and again he's doing that. What is that? What do you classify that is, what's he doing with his right hand?

Mr Dawson: Well that would be a squeaker that he's got.

Chairman: So you're standing beside him and his got a sqeaker..

Chairman: And you don't think his training a greyhound. What you do with a squeaker?

Mr Dawson: Well, well, he's obviously running his dog, yes.

1. Continuing this C2 sequence, at 10:36, Mr Dawson comes into view and briefly stands with Mr Vass. Mr Vass' behaviour does not match his behaviour within the 46 seconds. More likely than not, C1 did not capture this footage.
2. C2 (10:41) also shows a short grainy image of Mr Vass alone in the Track for say 10 seconds. This also does not appear to be captured by C1.
3. In my view, the surveillance footage shows Mr Dawson and Mr Vass within the Track at the same time for approximately 100 seconds.
4. Continuing with events of the morning, at 10:46:44 (C1) Mr Dawson re-enters the close run and exercises a black and white greyhound for about three minutes using a black fluffy toy. At 10:49:31 (C1) Mr Dawson exits the Track and returns to his dog trailer. About this time, Mr Vass put a dog into his car (10:48 - C2).
5. After completing some tasks around the dog trailer, Mr Dawson joins Mr Vass and others in the car park with a conversation ending and the group breaking apart at 10:55 (C2). The surveillance video ends.
6. Mr Dawson and Mr Vass have been either in the car park, the area immediately outside the Track gate or in the Track for say 25 minutes. C1 (22 minutes from 10:29:14 when Mr Vass is first sighted in the car park to 10:51:11 when Mr Dawson is working around his trailer). C2 shows Mr Dawson briefly joining Mr Vass and others in conversation, probably for a few minutes after he leaves his trailer.

1. Charge 1 is not proven.
2. Concerning the elements of Charge 1, the following are clearly proven:

1. Mr Dawson was a registered person; 2. Mr Vass was a disqualified person;

1. They were together on the Track.
2. Contrary to submissions on Mr Dawson's behalf, Mr Dawson was at the Track for the purposes of greyhound racing.
3. The Rules broadly define "greyhound racing" as meaning:

everything and anyone who participates at any level, at any time, with any activity associated with greyhounds or racing and includes, but is not limited to:

1. the keeping of greyhounds which are in the care or custody of registered or other persons;
2. the registration and breeding of greyhounds; and

1. any matter or thing connected with greyhound racing.

a dog or bitch of the species registered or licensed pursuant to the rules for controlling body.

1. Training is something connected with greyhound racing. The rules define "train" or "trainer" to mean:

the preparation, education or exercise of a greyhound to race or trial.

1. Mr Dawson was at the Track as a registered trainer with registered greyhounds to exercise them as part of his training of those greyhounds so they could race given Mr Dawson regularly races greyhounds. Why else would he take the trouble of attending the Track multiple times a week?
2. He had signed the Warragul Greyhound Racing Club Track Rules identifying the Track as a "licensed greyhound training facility". Whatever "licensed" meant, the word did not refer to licencing as a greyhound trial track (see below).
3. I rejected the submission that Mr Dawson was at the Track, "as a necessary incidence of animal husbandry", and this in some sense removed his activity at the Track from training. Animal husbandry does not necessarily include taking a dog to a purpose-built greyhound training facility.
4. I rejected the submission that s79A of the Act in some way negates the fact that Mr Dawson was training at the Track. Section 79A concerns the conduct of trials or other training of greyhounds on a greyhound trial track. The Darnum Slip Track is not a greyhound trial track.
5. However, I was not comfortably satisfied Mr Dawson and Mr Vass associated for the purposes of greyhound racing as the particulars allege:

In that you did on 20 November 2015, being a registered person, associate with a disqualified person namely Mr Tony Vass, for the purposes of greyhound racing to wit you allowed him to exercise a brindle coloured greyhound at a greyhound training facility known as the Darnum Slip Track (a greyhound training facility located at Pedder St, Darnum and managed by the Warragul Greyhound Racing Club).

1. First, the only evidence of Mr Vass within the Track with a brindle coloured dog is the brief sequence with the dog; quite possibly the one he bought to the Track. There was no evidence that dog is a "greyhound" as defined by the Rules. In terms of how the rules define "greyhound" (see above) there was no evidence it was registered or licensed pursuant to the rules of a controlling body.

1. Related to this issue, I note both the Stewards and the Board had addressed suspicion that Mr Vass was training one of his partner's registered dogs brought to the Track by Mr Dawson.[14] The evidence before VCAT does not allow for that finding.
2. Second, the evidence did not satisfy me Mr Dawson allowed Mr Vass to exercise the brindle dog. His concessions before the Stewards and before the Board go to them training their own dogs at the same time. He does not concede he allowed Mr Vass to do so. The surveillance footage does not show him doing so. In fact, the footage to an extent contradicts his concessions. Why was a relevant footage only 17 seconds long? Why did it not show the dogs running together on the separate runs?
3. Given the above particular was what Mr Dawson was required to answer with respect to Charge 1, these reasons concerning Charge 1 could stop here.
4. However, as the hearing before me was conducted in broader terms, for completeness I address the following.
5. While on 20 November 2015 Mr Dawson associated with Mr Vass over about 25 minutes in and adjacent to the Track, I was not comfortably satisfied Mr Dawson associated with Mr Vass within the Track for the purposes of greyhound racing.
6. I was not satisfied Mr Dawson was "associating" with Mr Vass as Mr Dawson trained the dogs he brought to the Track as a partner in an enterprise or action. The Macquarie Dictionary, Sixth Edition relevantly defines "associate" in those terms. Why would he? Mr Dawson is a veteran trainer.
7. The 46 second sequence (C1) does not lead me to find they were associating for the purposes of greyhound racing. There is no evidence of them working together concerning Mr Dawson training his dog, which more likely than not was registered. Rather, before the beginning of the sequence Mr Dawson walks some way away from Mr Vass who is still outside the Track. I am unable to conclude once Mr Vass walks into the Track, seemingly without a dog, that they are discussing or acting together with respect to greyhound racing. They could well have been talking about other things. I doubt they are talking about people watching from the trees. Despite the footage which might be interpreted as Mr Vass looking and pointing in the direction of the camera, the camera was a very long way away and camouflaged.
8. The 27 second sequence (C2) is inconclusive. It does not show any significant communication between the two. Concerning this charge, Mr Dawson's concessions noted above before the Board are not sufficient evidence to in context of the footage evidence.
9. I rejected the submission on behalf of GRV that the concept of "wilful blindness" as enunciated in Hong Yen Le v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] VSCA 72 [para 23] had application here. If the concept is relevant here, the evidence here does not support a finding of some form of wilful blindness to being a partner in an enterprise or action.
10. While GRV submitted the appearances of the black fluffy toy and Mr Vass waiving something about (in C2) was important evidence with respect to Charge 1, I disagreed. It was too obscure to assist.
11. Finally, I rejected the submission that Charge 1 could be proven by finding that Mr Dawson was training a greyhound and Mr Vass was simply present within the Track. Those facts alone, which are proven, do not constitute association for the purposes of greyhound racing.

1. Charge 2 is proven.
2. I was comfortably satisfied and formed the opinion that Mr Dawson omitted to do a thing such that his conduct was improper and constituted misconduct. He allowed Mr Vass to remain on the Track with him, in that Mr Dawson failed to immediately remove himself from the Track while Mr Vass was there.
3. While the conduct itself relates to the time Mr Vass and Mr Dawson were in the Track, it must be put in context. Mr Dawson knew Mr Vass was in the car park and in the preparation area adjacent to the Track before Mr Vass entered the Track. They were talking in the car park and over the Track fence. It was not as if Mr Vass arrived in the car park that morning without Mr Dawson noticing and appeared within the Track, surprising Mr Dawson.
4. There was no indication in the surveillance footage of Mr Dawson in any way remonstrating with Mr Vass asking him to leave. All was calm and convivial between them. Mr Dawson's claim before the Stewards and the Board that he would have asked Mr Vass to leave was half-hearted and unpersuasive.
5. I doubt Mr Dawson's claim that he has no recollection of his dealings with Mr Vass that morning within the Track, either now, when before the Stewards on 5 January 2016 and before the Board. Unless Mr Vass is regularly with Mr Dawson on the Track, his appearance on 20 November 2015 would have been memorable. Mr Dawson had good recall of the others present.
6. I note here Mr Dawson had complained at the editing of the surveillance footage. However, he had not taken up the opportunity the Stewards offered to him, well before the VCAT hearing, to visit their office and view the full versions. I proceeded on the basis that any edited footage did not show Mr Dawson or Mr Vass.
7. Concerning the 46 second sequence (C1), with Mr Vass at the end of the close run, as Mr Dawson approached Mr Vass the body language shows there was friendly banter between them. Mr Dawson did not quickly pass by. He stopped to chat in a friendly fashion.
8. Mr Dawson admitted he and Mr Vass each had dogs within the Track, each on a separate run. To that the 17 second segment (C1) of Mr Vass with a dog in the close run, can be added. The 27 second sequence (C2), also shows them together.
9. There is a possibility that better quality footage, or having complete versions of the footage would show the 27 second sequence was within the 46 second sequence. If that was so, in the context of Mr Dawson's evidence quoted above, that would not change my view.
10. Proper conduct in this situation would have been for Mr Dawson on seeing Mr Vass in the Track for the first time, who he knew to be a disqualified person, to have immediately collected his dog and left the Track, until Mr Vass left it. Then, Mr Dawson should have stayed away from the Track until it was quite clear there was no prospect of Mr Vass re-entering it. If he failed to do that and Mr Vass re-entered the Track again, he should have immediately left.
11. It is clear with reference to the footage and taking into account Mr Dawson's admissions concerning his time with Mr Vass that he did not do this.

1. Mr Dawson complains Greyhound Racing Victoria is improperly pursuing him to achieve its policy of deterring registered trainers from associating with disqualified trainers. At the Board hearing, in cross-examination he put this to Mr Matthews. Mr Mathews said GRV has no power over a disqualified trainer once disqualified. It wishes to deter qualified trainers from associating with disqualified trainers; "we have to look at the people who associate with them".[15]
2. While the apparent 'GRV policy' is understandable, it is irrelevant to this decision.

1. It is now necessary to decide what penalty to impose under rule 85 of the Rules.
2. The parties have indicated a preference for written submissions with no further Tribunal hearing. The above procedural orders allow for that.

[1] Vass v Greyhound Racing Victoria (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 1488

[4] Steward's Inquiry transcript, 5 January 2016, page 41-42.

[11] Board transcript, pages 133 and 134.

[13] Timed by me using a stopwatch against the footage.