respondent. The decision of Harness Racing Victoria refusing the applicant a driver's licence was affirmed.
Key principles
Under Rule 90 of the Rules of Harness Racing, the controlling body has a broad discretion whether to grant a licence and on what conditions. Expiry of a disqualification period...
In deciding whether the applicant should receive a driver's licence, the Tribunal considered her overall history and whether she had demonstrated reform, honesty, respect for the...
The applicant's repeated serious rule breaches, including further breaches while disqualified, and the Tribunal's findings about her failure to accept responsibility meant it was...
Issues before the court
Whether the applicant should be granted a harness racing driver's licence after her disqualification period had expired.
Whether the Tribunal should confine its assessment to the applicant's driving skills and driving-related conduct.
Whether elapsed time, remorse, support letters and the applicant's racing achievements established sufficient reform to justify a licence.
Plain English Summary
The Tribunal held that the end of a racing disqualification did not automatically entitle Pullicino to a driver's licence. It considered her complete history and found that her repeated serious breaches, including breaches while disqualified, and her responses to those matters did not establish that she had reformed. It therefore upheld Harness Racing Victoria's refusal.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
2,225 words · generated 30/09/2026
What happened
Pullicino v Harness Racing Victoria concerned an application for a harness racing driver's licence, not a challenge to the original disciplinary findings. Gaita Pullicino had been involved in harness racing for most of her life. The judgment records her account of approximately 500 winners trained and 1,000 winners driven, along with numerous race and series wins. The Tribunal did not dispute her career achievements or driving skills.
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
Her disciplinary history was extensive. The judgment recounts findings and penalties spanning several decades, including a 1992 finding for failing to allow a horse to run on its merits, a 1995 disqualification after a horse was presented with prohibited substances, and disciplinary findings connected with the horse Nuclear Ash in 1999. It also records later breaches of disqualification in Tasmania and Victoria. The Tribunal did not rehear each original charge as a fresh disciplinary proceeding. It considered the recorded history as evidence relevant to the licensing assessment.
Pullicino's disqualification period expired in early 2007. She had earlier applied for a stable hand licence in Tasmania, but relinquished it after conditions were imposed. In May 2008, she applied to Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) for a driver's licence. HRV refused. She later applied for a stable hand licence, also refused, but at the VCAT hearing she pursued review only of the driver's licence refusal.
The hearing took place over 14, 15 and 16 April 2009. Both parties called witnesses and made submissions. Pullicino argued that she was fit and proper, that her record should not justify an ongoing refusal, and that her experience and past success benefited the industry. She also relied on the passage of time and sought what she described as a second chance. HRV submitted that the overall record demonstrated a continuing lack of honesty, respect for the rules and respect for those who regulate the sport.
On 13 May 2009, Deputy President Coghlan affirmed HRV's decision. The result was not that the Tribunal imposed a new disqualification. It upheld the refusal to issue the licence then under review.
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal began with the statutory and regulatory framework. Section 39(1) of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) establishes the Board known as Harness Racing Victoria. Section 44 describes its functions, including controlling the sport of harness racing. Section 49 empowers the Board to make rules on matters including registrations, disqualifications, and the granting or refusal of authorities. Rule 90 of the Rules of Harness Racing addresses licences. In particular, Rule 90(4) permits a licence to be granted for a period and on conditions the controlling body thinks fit, while Rule 90(5) permits an application to be refused without reasons being assigned.
The Tribunal described the discretion as broad. It used the fit and proper person authorities discussed in the reasons to frame the assessment. The judgment refers to Cristobal Siguenza v Secretary to the Department of Infrastructure [2002] VSC 46 and reproduces material concerning Secretary to the Department of Justice v Frugtniet. The Tribunal's approach was that fitness depends on the purpose and context of the licensing function, and can be demonstrated by conduct in more than one setting. The relevant question was therefore not confined to whether Pullicino could drive a horse competently.
The Tribunal assessed the whole history. It placed particular weight on the seriousness and frequency of rule breaches, including breaches after she was disqualified. Its concern was not only the underlying conduct, but also her responses when those matters were put to her. It found that she repeatedly denied or avoided responsibility for findings that had already been made, including matters where appeals had been dismissed. In relation to the 1992 failure to let a horse run on its merits, for example, she continued to maintain her innocence despite the unsuccessful appeal and gave an explanation that the Tribunal did not find persuasive (Discussion, paras 4-6).
The Tribunal also considered conduct involving other participants and officials. It referred to the 1992 incident in which she abused and struck another driver, and her explanation that she could not recall striking him. It also considered her conduct during the Nuclear Ash inquiry, including that she acknowledged punching a witness but did not recall the accompanying words put to her. The Tribunal viewed this as relevant to personal control and respect for authority (Discussion, paras 7-14).
The 2005 stewards' visit to the Rockbank property was another important part of the reasoning. The Tribunal considered video footage and evidence about the applicant's refusal to admit the stewards, her language and physical conduct, and her refusal to answer questions about horses on the property. It rejected her explanation that she did not know the stewards had authority to enter. It also accepted evidence that she had previously been found at a property while disqualified, despite a condition on her son's licence that she not attend there (Discussion, paras 15-21).
The Tribunal did not accept that the application should be considered only as one about driving. It accepted Pullicino might possess the necessary driving skills, but reasoned that a driver's licence could, in the circumstances, enable a broader role in the operation. Her husband had applied for a trainer's licence for the Rockbank property, and Pullicino accepted that it could be difficult for stewards to distinguish driving from training. The Tribunal therefore considered her wider conduct and the practical setting in which the licence might operate (Discussion, para 23).
The Tribunal accepted two general propositions advanced by the applicant: a person can reform after disqualification, and time can be relevant. But it found that neither proposition resolved the application in her favour. It considered her subsequent breaches while disqualified evidence against reform. It also found that the supporting witness, Mrs Tyack, had limited recent contact with Pullicino and did not provide a sufficiently informed basis for confidently assessing reform (Discussion, paras 25-29). The Tribunal accepted that Pullicino was remorseful in the sense that disqualification had affected her life, but it was not satisfied that this showed she had fully acknowledged the wrongdoing (Discussion, para 30).
Before and after state of the law
The decision applied the framework set out in the legislation and rules cited in the judgment. Section 49 of the Racing Act provides the rule-making power relied on in the reasons. Rule 90 is the direct licensing provision: it allows the controlling body to regulate activities connected with harness racing by licence, to set licence terms and conditions, and to refuse an application. The Tribunal treated these provisions as conferring a broad discretion.
The reasons do not identify a prior rule that made expiry of a disqualification an automatic route back to licensing. Instead, the Tribunal expressly rejected that proposition as an account of the scheme. Its statement was: “The mere expiration of a disqualification period does not mean that one automatically has a right to be licensed again” (Discussion, para 36). The licensing decision remained a separate assessment under Rule 90.
Nor does the judgment claim to change the general meaning of “fit and proper person”. It discusses existing authorities and applies a contextual approach to the statutory purpose of harness racing regulation. The case-specific emphasis was on integrity, compliance, respect for stewards, and evidence of reform, assessed against the complete record rather than driving ability alone.
The judgment does not provide a later history of the decision or discuss subsequent cases. Accordingly, the source supports explaining the framework applied in 2009, but not a claim about how later courts or tribunals have treated it. It also does not identify any legislative amendment after the decision. Any account of later law or subsequent treatment would require sources beyond this judgment.
Key passages with plain-English translation
At Discussion paragraph 23, the Tribunal accepted that Pullicino might have the driving skills required, but rejected the suggestion that the inquiry should be confined to those skills. It considered the possibility that, in the practical setting of the proposed operation, a driver might also exercise influence over training. In plain English, the Tribunal assessed the risks associated with the licence as it might work in reality, not just the applicant's ability to drive.
At Discussion paragraph 25, the Tribunal stated that good behaviour after disqualification can show reform. This matters because the decision was not based on a view that past misconduct permanently prevents a person from being licensed. The question was whether the evidence in this application demonstrated change.
At paragraphs 28-30, the Tribunal explained why it gave limited weight to the support evidence and the applicant's expressions of remorse. It considered the supporting witness well-meaning, but found that her limited recent contact and lack of concrete information about reform did not permit a confident assessment. It also distinguished regret about the consequences of disqualification from a demonstrated acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
At paragraph 32, the Tribunal recognised Pullicino's successes but did not regard them as sufficient to overcome the absence of persuasive evidence of reform, honesty and integrity. In plain English, professional achievement was relevant background, but did not substitute for the qualities the Tribunal considered necessary for a licence.
The clearest statement of the result is at paragraph 36: “The mere expiration of a disqualification period does not mean that one automatically has a right to be licensed again.” Paragraph 37 then applies that approach to Pullicino's record and concludes that she had not shown the respect for the rules and regulators that the Tribunal considered important.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
The decision is relevant where a licensing body has discretion to grant or refuse a regulated industry licence and the applicant argues that a past disqualification has ended, so a licence should now be granted. The case illustrates that the end of a penalty period and the later licensing decision are distinct questions under the provisions considered by VCAT.
It is particularly relevant to applications involving an extended pattern of misconduct, repeated breaches after a disqualification, or conduct that bears on the applicant's respect for regulators and compliance systems. It also illustrates that an applicant's answers about past findings, willingness to accept responsibility, and evidence of changed behaviour may form part of the assessment.
The reasoning may also be relevant where the applicant says that the regulator should consider only the technical skills associated with the specific licence. Here, the Tribunal looked beyond driving skill because of its view of the practical relationship between driving and training at the proposed property. That aspect depended on the evidence in this case, including the husband's trainer's licence application and the applicant's evidence about the difficulty of distinguishing activities.
The judgment does not establish that every past disciplinary offence will prevent licensing, or that an applicant must satisfy a fixed formula for proving reform. It expressly recognises that good behaviour after disqualification may establish reform. Its significance lies in the contextual and evidentiary assessment the Tribunal conducted on these facts.
How later courts have treated it
The supplied judgment does not discuss any later court or tribunal decisions, and it contains no information about how later decision-makers treated Pullicino. It would therefore be unsupported to describe it as followed, distinguished, approved, or otherwise treated by later courts based only on this source.
Within its own reasons, the Tribunal relies on the fit and proper person discussion in Cristobal Siguenza v Secretary to the Department of Infrastructure [2002] VSC 46 and reproduces material referring to Secretary to the Department of Justice v Frugtniet. The decision also sets out propositions drawn through that discussion about the contextual nature of fitness assessments. Those are authorities considered in reaching the decision, not later treatment of Pullicino.
The case is a VCAT decision in the Occupational and Business Regulation List. The judgment itself does not state that its reasoning is binding on later courts or tribunals. Assessing its precedential status beyond what is expressly stated would require additional legal sources.
Still-open questions
The judgment resolves the application before it, but leaves broader questions unanswered. It does not set out a checklist or threshold for proving rehabilitation after a disqualification. It recognises that good behaviour can demonstrate reform, but does not specify how long that behaviour must continue or what kinds of evidence will ordinarily be persuasive.
It also does not define the limits of considering conduct beyond the immediate tasks attached to a particular licence. The Tribunal relied on evidence about the proposed operation and the possible overlap between driving and training. The judgment does not determine how far a regulator may extend that kind of practical assessment in other licensing settings.
The reasons identify the importance of honesty, respect for rules and respect for regulators, but do not prescribe how those matters should be weighted against technical skill, past achievements, time elapsed, or the impact of refusal on an applicant and family. The Tribunal weighed those matters on this record; it did not announce a universal ranking.
Finally, the judgment does not address later amendments to the Racing Act or Rules of Harness Racing, nor does it supply subsequent decisions applying its reasoning. Any present-day application would require checking the current legislation, rules and later authorities. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes, and before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Judgment (55 paragraphs)
[1]
Pullicino v Harness Racing Victoria (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 897 (13 May 2009)
[2]
Occupational & Business Regulation List - Harness Racing Victoria - harness racing - whether applicant should be granted a driver's licence - disqualification period expired - broad discretion whether or not to grant - application refused - Racing Act1958ss 39, 49 - Rules of Harness Racing Rule 90
[3]
Pullicino v Harness Racing Victoria (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 897
[4]
Ms I Braun of counsel instructed by John Anile Pty, Solicitors
[5]
Mr R Smith SC with Mr A Burns of counsel instructed by Harness Racing Victoria
[6]
Harness Racing is a sport supported by a diverse range of people. It is not dominated by large training stables like thoroughbred racing. A large number of participants run their own small operations, some from family properties. Such operations are spread thinly throughout the State of Victoria.
Gaita Pullicino, the applicant in this proceeding, for the whole of her 53 years, has had a passion for harness racing. She grew up in a harness racing family and for many years had success training and driving horses. As she herself puts it :
In 1979, women were granted the right to drive in Victoria. This allowed me to drive for my father and many other trainers. I was the No 1 female driver for many years, and in the top ten drivers overall within Victoria. I competed in a number of top 10 invitation only races against both men and women. I have many wonderful memories but one of my biggest thrills in Harness Racing was winning a series called the "Quaddie of the Stars".
[7]
My achievements include :
- Approx - 500 winners trained;
- Approx - 1000 winners driven;
- Winner of the 'Quaddie of the Stars' Series at Moonee Valley;
- Winner of the Horsham Drivers' Series in 1992 and 1999;
- Winner of the Ballarat Cup, Wagga Cup, Maryborough Cup, Stawell Cup, Albury Trotters Cup, Albury Oaks, Terang Cup, El Dorado, Castlemaine Cup and many metropolitan races;
- Second in the Australia Derby;
- Second in the Australian Pacing Gold Series;
- Driving an average of 7 winners a week for most of the 98-99 season;
- Winner many doubles, trebles and quaddies;
- Having in excess of 20 horses in full work at any one time, employing 3 full time staff and 2 part time staff;
- Participating in many television, radio and print media interviews;
- Talking to many groups of school children; and
- Leading woman trainer/driver from 1986 to 1999.
[8]
In July 1999, Mrs Pullicino was disqualified from holding a licence for 3½ years. She was disqualified for further periods for subsequent breaches of the rules whilst a disqualified person. The disqualification period expired early in 2007. Thereafter, she applied for registration in Tasmania where her son was a trainer. She was eventually successful obtaining a stable hand licence in Tasmania, but when it had conditions placed on it which required her to work with a nominated trainer, she relinquished that licence.
In May 2008, Mrs Pullicino applied to Harness Racing Victoria for a driver's licence. Her application was refused. In November 2008, she applied for a stable hand licence. It too was refused.
Mrs Pullicino applied to this Tribunal for review of those decisions. During the hearing, it was made clear that she only sought review of the decision not to grant her a driver's licence.
[9]
Section 39(1) in Part II of the Racing Act1958 establishes a Board, being a body corporate, in the name of Harness Racing Victoria.
The function of the Board is set out in s 44. It is
[10]
(ba) to consult with harness racing industry participants and facilitate consultation amongst harness racing industry participants; and
[11]
(c) to exercise such powers functions and duties as are conferred on the Board by or under this or any other Act.
[12]
Section 49 sets out the powers of the Board to make rules for or with respect to -
[13]
(a) the control of the sport of harness racing in Victoria including (without affecting the generality of the foregoing) rules for or with respect to registrations and de-registrations, disqualifications and suspensions, exclusion of clubs horses or persons from participation in harness races, the granting refusing to grant revoking or suspending of authorities, fees in respect of registrations and authorities, fines, and any other matters which the Board is by or under this or any other Act required or empowered to perform;
[14]
(b) the management of harness race-meetings conducted by the Board.
[15]
Rule 90 of the Rules of Harness Racing, where Harness Racing Victoria is the controlling body, deals with the grant of licences and other matters. The Rules states :
[16]
90.(1) The Controlling Body may by licence regulate any activity connected with the harness racing industry.
[17]
(2) An application for a licence shall be made by the persons in the manner and form and be accompanied by such documentation, information and fees as the Controlling Body may determine.
[18]
(3) A person applying to be relicensed with a Controlling Body shall, if previously licensed by another Controlling Body or recognised harness racing authority, provide a written clearance from that Controlling Body or recognised harness racing authority detailing the status of the person relating to current penalty, debt or other embargo.
[19]
(4) The Controlling Body may grant a licence for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
[20]
(5) An application for a licence may be refused by the Controlling Body without assigning any reason.
[21]
(a) by the Controlling Body or the stewards for breach of a term or condition of the licence; or
[22]
(b) by the Controlling Body where the Controlling Body is satisfied that the person holding the licence is not a fit and proper person to be associated with harness racing.
[23]
(7) The type, grade or class of a licence held by a person may be varied by the Controlling Body or by the stewards.
[24]
(8) The terms or conditions attaching to a type, grade or class of licence may be varied by the Stewards or the Controlling Body.
[25]
Thus, there is a very broad discretion as to whether to grant a licence and for conditions to be imposed on a licence.
Mrs Pullicino submits she is a fit and proper person and should be granted a driver's licence. On the other hand, it was contended for Harness Racing Victoria that Mrs Pullicino should not be granted a licence as she is not a fit and proper person.
The question of whether a person is a "fit and proper person" has been considered in many cases and different contexts. As Balmford J in Cristobal Siguenza v Secretary to the Department of Infrastructure[2002] VSC 46 said at paragraphs 30, 31 and 34, and to which case Ms Braun referred me :
There are many other cases where courts have been required to consider the question of whether a particular individual is a fit and proper person in a particular statutory context, although neither counsel referred me to any case relating to the fitness of a person to be authorised as a driving instructor. Dixon CJ and McTiernan and Webb JJ said, generally, in Hughes & Vale v New South Wales(No 2) [15] :
[26]
The expression "fit and proper person" is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. "Fit" (or "idoneus") with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty knowledge and ability: "honesty to execute it truly, without malice affection or partiality; knowledge to know what he ought duly to do; and ability as well in estate as in body, that he may intend and execute his office, when need is, diligently, and not for impotency or poverty neglect it"--Coke. When the question was whether a man was a fit and proper person to hold a licence for the sale of liquor it was considered that it ought not to be confined to an inquiry into his character and that it would be unwise to attempt any definition of the matters which may legitimately be inquired into; each case must depend upon its own circumstances: R. v. Hyde Justices(1912) 1 K.B. 645, at p. 664. In another such case it was decided that if in the view of the justices the security of tenure enjoyed by the proposed licensee in the premises was insufficient, that was a good ground for holding that he was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence: R. v. Holborn Licensing Justices; Ex parte Stratford Catering Co. Ltd.(1926) 42 T.L.R. 778.
[27]
The Appeal Division of this Court (Ormiston, Nathan and Vincent JJ) in Secretary to the Department of Justice v Frugtniet [16] was considering whether the respondent was, in terms of section 20(1) of the Travel Agents Act 1986 "a fit and proper person to continue to hold" a travel agent's licence. Their Honours said [17] :
[28]
What must be considered is the fitness of the individual concerned to operate as a licensed travel agent. Unfitness may be manifested in a variety of circumstances and in a multitude of ways. Some of those may be associated with employment as a travel agent but there is no requirement that this be the case and unfitness may be demonstrated by conduct totally unconnected with any such employment or employment at all.
[29]
It is clear from the authorities that the test of a "fit and proper person" must depend, in each case, on the purpose of the legislation under which the test is being applied. I have already found that in the present case that purpose is, as expressed in the Second Reading Speech (see [22] above) "to ensure appropriate levels of personal safety and security for learner drivers and adequate training competency of driving instructors". The question is thus whether a given applicant, in the general terms adopted by Walters J, has the qualities which would "permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails".
It will be seen then that the term "fit and proper person"
[30]
- gives the widest scope for judgment and rejection
[31]
- involves notions of honesty, knowledge and ability
[32]
- may be manifested in a variety of circumstances in a multitude of ways
[33]
Whilst I am considering Mrs Pullicino's application now, and my task is to decide whether or not she should be licensed, her whole history of involvement with harness racing is relevant. Harness Racing maintains "offence reports", or disciplinary records, for those involved. Mrs Pullicino's report, tendered during the hearing, commences in September 1980. As with any driver, it contains a number of what are regarded as "traffic" offences. Those matters are of no concern in this hearing.
What the records show are numerous offences where Mrs Pullicino was disciplined for breaches of the rules of harness racing. Her record is set out in the supplementary witness statement of Brant Dunshea, General Manager - Racing - Integrity Services, with Harness Racing Victoria, who gave evidence during the hearing. For convenience, I set out here the relevant paragraphs in his statement :
On or before 28 June 1991 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty under old Rule 365 for wilfully supplying false information. Penalty - Suspended 3 Months. (Appeal dismissed however penalty varied to suspension of 1 Month & $1500 fine).
On or about 10 December 1991 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty under old Rule 375 of conduct that was fraudulent, corrupt or detrimental to the sport of harness racing. The particulars of this offence relate to a disqualified person Mr G Linton being located by Stewards at the stable property of Mrs Pullicino with her knowledge. Penalty - Disqualified 6 Months. (An Appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal (RAT) was dismissed however the penalty was varied to a fine of $10000 with disqualification suspended for a period of 2 years provided no serious offences during that time).
On or about 19 February 1992 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty under old Rule 223A of failing to allow a horse to run on its merits. The particulars of this offence relate to her drive on the horse Good Fortune, which placed second in race 4 at the Shepparton meeting on 21 January 1992. Penalty - Disqualified 12 Months. (an Appeal to RAT was dismissed) ...
On 9 April 1992 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty under old Rule 370A of committing a foul and improper act. The particulars of this offence relate to her conduct following a race at Horsham in which she drove . She abused and struck with a whip the driver of another runner Mr T Patching. - Disqualified 6 months. (An Appeal to RAT was dismissed).
[34]
Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under Old Local Rule LR1 for giving false and misleading evidence at a Stewards inquiry in relation to the training of the horse Nuclear Ash. Penalty - Disqualified 6 Months. (Her Appeal to RAT was dismissed).
2. Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under old Rule 436A for presenting the horse Nuclear Ash to race not free of the prohibited substance ketolorac. Penalty - Disqualified 2 years. (Her Appeal to RAT was dismissed).
[35]
Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under old Rule 416 for conspiring t o deceive both HRV and the public with respect to the training of Nuclear Ash. Penalty - Disqualified 12 Months. (Her Appeal to RAT was dismissed).
[36]
Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under old Rule 430 for assaulting a witness during the course of the Stewards inquiry into the Nuclear Ash matters. The particulars of this offence relate to her striking a witness. Penalty - Disqualified 6 Months & fined $10,000. (The penalty was varied on appeal to RAT to disqualification of 6 months & $5,000 fine).
[37]
Subsequently, a witness in the Nuclear Ash matter, George Schembri swore an affidavit claiming that he had given false evidence to the Stewards Inquiry and RAT, and that he and not Mrs Pullicino had trained Nuclear Ash at the relevant time. Mrs Pullicino made an Application for Judicial Review to the Supreme Court.
[38]
His Honour Mr Justice Smith declined to set aside the conviction and penalty imposed by the RAT.
[39]
On 24 January 2001 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under Rule 187(2) for giving false and misleading evidence to a Stewards inquiry in Tasmania. Penalty - Disqualified for 12 months.
[40]
Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a further 3 charges under the various provisions of Rule 259(1) for breaching the terms of disqualification as a consequence of her attending at a Davenport Harness Racing Meeting in Tasmania. Penalty- Disqualified 12 Months in respect of each of 3 charges.
[41]
Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a further 3 charges under the various provisions of Rule 259(1) for breaching the terms of disqualification as a consequence of her attending at a Hobart Harness Racing Meeting in Tasmania. Penalty - Disqualified 12 Months in respect of each of the 3 charges.
[42]
It was ordered that the various penalties above were to be served concurrently with the ultimate penalty being a total period of disqualification of 2 years.
[43]
On 3 February 2004 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty of a charge under Rule 259(1)(g) after being located at a property at Rockbank at which harness racing horses were trained, whilst disqualified. I conducted that stable inspection with former colleague Mr Dayle Brown, where we observed Mrs Pullicino at the property whilst disqualified. Furthermore I gave evidence as a witness at, and participated in, the subsequent inquiry into the matter. Penalty - Disqualified 3 years (Varied to 18 Months on appeal to RAT).
[44]
On 25 September 2006 Mrs Pullicino pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 259(1)(h) for participating in the harness industry whilst disqualified by driving a horse on a property at Rockbank at which harness racing horses were trained. I attended at the property on the day of the offence. I gave evidence as a witness at, and participated in, the initial stages of the subsequent inquiry into the matter. Penalty - Disqualified for 611 Days.
[45]
Mrs Pullicino pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 231(1) for abusing HRV Stewards during the course of their duties. Penalty - Fined $5000.
[46]
Mrs Pullicino pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 231(1) for improperly interfering with HRV Stewards in the course of their duties. Penalty - Fined $5000.
[47]
Ms Braun of counsel appeared for Mrs Pullicino and Mr Smith SC with Mr Burns appeared for Harness Racing Victoria. Both parties called witnesses who gave evidence and were cross-examined. Both tendered material in evidence and made submissions. Both parties proceeded on the basis that the issue for determination was whether Mrs Pullicino was a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence.
In summary, it was contended for Mrs Pullicino that
[48]
- she is a fit and proper person to hold a licence
[49]
- her record in the industry does not warrant ongoing refusal to grant her a licence
[50]
- she is able to meet the industry's standards of integrity
[51]
- her racing record is an asset to the industry and generates public interest, support and growth in the industry
[52]
- her absence from the industry for almost 10 years warrants her being given a 'second chance' and that she should be granted a licence.
[53]
Mr Smith for Harness Racing Victoria, on the other hand, submitted that looking at the whole picture, it demonstrates that she is not a fit and proper person to be licensed and is not of good character. He submitted that the grant of a licence is a signal to the public that the licensee is regarded a fit and proper person, is honest and has integrity, qualities that he submitted Mrs Pullicino still does not possess.
So far as her history is concerned, Mr Smith maintained each of the offences is serious and indicates that Mrs Pullicino lacks the following :
[54]
As I said, Mrs Pullicino gave evidence and was cross-examined. Even allowing that she is a person of little education, as Ms Braun described her, and not as experienced or able to express herself in the way a more educated person might, she did not impress. She is 53 years old yet she struck me as childish. At every turn, she claimed she has been treated badly by the stewards, singled out, harassed and picked on. She pleaded that she be given a second chance. She apologised, said she was sorry for what she had done and promised to obey the rules.
Mr Smith in cross-examination put to her the infringements set out earlier in these reasons. In her account of these very matters during the hearing, she repeatedly was unable or unwilling to accept responsibility or blame as to any matter. Given that there must always be a possibility an individual is on a particular occasion wrongly blamed, it seems unlikely however that she suffered this misfortune so often and in two different states.
It is impractical and inappropriate to rehearse the detail of all these matters but I will refer to some in more detail.
In 1992, she was disqualified for a year for failing to allow a horse to run on its merits. She accepted that not allowing a horse to run on its merits was a very very serious offence.
Even though she appealed her disqualification for this breach and her appeal was dismissed, she continued during this hearing to maintain her innocence.
She explained she could not have been guilty because her horse had only lost by half a head. How that claim proves her assertion she was innocent escapes me.
In 1992 she was found guilty of committing a foul and improper act. After the particular race was finished, she abused and struck the driver of another runner with a whip. She was disqualified for six months and again her appeal was dismissed. During the hearing, she said she could recall abusing the driver but not hitting him with her whip. For that detail to escape her was remarkable, given that she gave a detailed explanation in the hearing of what happened in the race. She explained during the hearing that her horse was odds on favourite, and liked to run in "the death", ie one out and one back. Every time she went to pass, she said the other driver ran her off. She ran second. She thought it was unfair and the other driver's fault.
[55]
For these reasons, I affirm the decision of the respondent.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Pullicino
Respondent/Defendant:
Harness Racing Victoria
Legislation Cited (1)
Agents Act 1986
AI Analysis
Outcomerespondent
Disposition:
The decision of Harness Racing Victoria refusing the applicant a driver's licence was affirmed.
What the Butler Saw
Penalty
On 3 February 1995 Mrs Pullicino was found guilty under old Rule 436A for presenting the horse Give Us A Gift to race at the Wangaratta Meeting on 13 December 1994 not free of prohibited substances phenylbutazone, oxyphenbutazone, phenobarbitone and amphetamine. Penalty - Disqualified 2 years.
Mrs Pullicino was also found guilty under old Rule 407 in the same matter for failing to give evidence at the Stewards inquiry relating to Give Us A Gift. Penalty - Disqualified 6 Months (served concurrently with penalty above).
On 17 November 1998 Mrs Pullicino pleaded guilty to a charge in the Melbourne Magistrates Court of attempting to obtain property by deception in relation to the prize money won by the horse Give Us A Gift at Wangaratta on 13th December 1994. Penalty - She was convicted and fined $3000. ....
On 8 July 1999:
She blamed the other driver. She excused herself and did not acknowledge her wrongdoing and the inappropriateness of her conduct nor acknowledge she had let her temper get the better of her.
In 1995, she was disqualified for 2 years for presenting a horse to race not free of prohibited substances. She actually blamed herself for what happened and said that never again would she buy something in an unlabelled bottle. She recounted during the hearing that a salesman had led her to believe that the substance in the unlabelled bottle was vitamins which would make her horse go faster, which it did.
Whilst she blamed herself on this occasion, I did not accept her evidence that she believed she was buying "vitamins". She was an experienced horse trainer and owner, not some naïve bystander.
In 1998, she pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to a charge of attempting to obtain property by deception. She was convicted and fined $3000.00. As I understand it, the circumstances involved injecting a horse with amphetamines. Even though she pleaded guilty, in this hearing she maintained she could not understand how she was ever charged. I did not accept that this was the case. She was legally represented in Court by highly experienced solicitors, and pleaded guilty. It is more likely that the reason she pleaded guilty was because she had done it, yet she still seems unable to admit this.
In 1999 she got into serious trouble with a horse called Nuclear Ash and events surrounding a disciplinary hearing. She was disqualified for 3½ years and fined. On appeal, the disqualification period stood, but the fine was reduced. The offences included the doping of the horse and misrepresenting who was its trainer.
During those proceedings, again her lack of personal control got the better of her and she punched one of the witnesses and called to Paul Pullicino to "hit the c.... Pauly". When that was put to her, she acknowledged punching him but could not remember calling out anything. She agreed that when she is upset she cannot recall what she does. That she would take matters into her own hands in that way during a disciplinary hearing suggests total lack of respect for authority and a total lack of personal control and is disgraceful conduct.
In 2002, Mrs Pullicino applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for a declaration that that decision made by the Racing Appeals Tribunal, affirming a steward's decision was null, void and of no effect and an order setting aside the decision and directing Harness Racing Victoria to review her case. Her application was not successful, yet Mrs Pullicino attempted to ventilate these matters again in this hearing. I accept that she feels she has been badly done by, but those mattes have already been well and truly put to rest. She is still unable to recognise that the ruling body has made adverse findings against her which she must accept.
In April 2005, the stewards visited a property at Rockbank that had, on and off, been Mrs Pullicino's home. She was living there with her husband who had a stable hand's licence. As such, stewards were entitled to enter the property.
Mrs Pullicino refused them entry and claimed in the hearing she did not know at the time the stewards had a right to enter. Given that Mrs Pullicino had been in the industry since the late 1970s, I found that hard to believe and rejected her evidence. If she really did not know, it reveals an astonishing lack of knowledge of what the stewards are entitled to do.
There is video footage of the visit. Her behaviour is atrocious. Swearing, pushing the stewards, claiming they had no right to enter and demanding they leave. When repeatedly asked by the stewards which horses were on the property, she refused to answer claiming "that's my business".
In the hearing she admitted there were registered horses on the property but claimed that they were only her hobby horses.
She explained her behaviour at the time was because she felt she was being harassed and victimised. Just how that could be, is difficult to see given that the stewards had had nothing to do with her for at least 15 months. Her last brush with the stewards was when they had found her in a wardrobe on the property run by her son, a registered trainer. She was found there whilst a disqualified person and in circumstances where there was an unequivocal condition on her son's licence that she not attend the property. According to Mr Dunshea, who gave evidence, that visit to the property was to identify two horses previously trained by someone else. It was a coincidence that he noticed Mrs Pullicino on the back steps. I accepted his evidence. She was caught red-handed. She did not simply acknowledge her wrong doing in the hearing, again she made an excuse for herself. She claimed she had just called in to use the toilet. I did not believe her. Even were I to accept her explanation, she should not have been on the property at all.
It is not difficult to conclude that the real explanation for her behaviour on the day in 2005 when she refused to let the stewards enter the property is because there were registered horses on the property that should not have been there and if discovered there would have been very serious consequences for the registered trainer of those horses.
Were her story that they were hobby horses true, given that she has been desperate to be re-licensed, one would have expected her to have been polite to the stewards and to have welcomed them onto the property to check and inspect the "hobby horses", to demonstrate she was not engaged in anything untoward and was not breaking any rules.
Ms Braun submitted that when looking at whether Mrs Pullicino is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence, I should give weight only to matters that can be fairly seen to be relevant to being a driver and not a trainer for example, who is responsible for the horses, their training and their presentation at race meetings. She emphasised Ms Pullicino's driving record and experience, as demonstrating she had the necessary skills required of a driver.
I accept that she might have the necessary driving skills, but I cannot accept that weight should only be given to such a narrow aspect. Even accepting it were so, her relevant driving record reveals very serious departures from the rules. She has failed to let a horse run on its merits. She has abused and hit another driver. Further, as Mr Smith pointed out, I accept that given the nature of harness racing, if she were given a driver's licence, she would potentially effectively be able to run the "whole show". This would be so because her husband, who is a truck driver, has applied for a trainer's licence for the Rockbank property. It is difficult to conclude other than that the reality would be Mrs Pullicino would be training and driving the horses. She conceded in the hearing that it would be difficult for stewards were they to observe, to distinguish between merely driving horses and also training them. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that I should consider her application in that narrow way.
Her record demonstrates that she has the temper of someone clearly with anger management problems, who even though disqualified continued to breach the rules and was further disqualified. It reveals she is a person who has an ongoing lack of respect not only for the stewards and those who regulate harness racing but for the rules of harness racing. As a disqualified person, she failed to distance herself from the sport. Even in Tasmania she attended race meetings, albeit only in the carpark, whilst a disqualified person.
It is always possible that a person by their good behaviour since their disqualification can show that they have reformed themselves. It is not unreasonable for a person to have since become a fit and proper person who should be granted the licence they seek.
In this case, I am not satisfied that Mrs Pullicino is such a reformed person. Apart from her own assertions and providing several letters of support, she called Mrs Florence Tyack to give evidence for her. Mrs Tyack is a licensed A Grade Trainer and has been a licensed person for almost 40 years. She has known Mrs Pullicino for over 30 years. She is confident Mrs Pullicino will now "toe the line" and believes she has seen a transformation in her, such that she is now a person who has learnt self control, and is ready to do the right thing.
It turns out that Mrs Tyack has rarely seen Mrs Pullicino over the last 10 years; their contact has mainly been by 'phone. It also turns out that Mrs Tyack was approached by Mrs Pullicino to train some of her horses at the Pullicino property, a matter omitted in her statement, and that permission was refused. It would have suited Mr Tyack to have some of her horses based in Rockbank.
I accept that Mrs Tyack is well meaning in coming forward for Mrs Pullicino. So far as Mrs Pullicino's alleged reform is concerned, in her ability to assess that, I regard her evidence as that of a lay person. She gave evidence in the 1999 hearing that Mrs Pullicino mixed with the wrong crowd and could not say "no". She agreed that she gave that evidence then, yet in this hearing she did not draw my attention to anything concrete that might satisfy me that Mrs Pullicino is indeed a reformed person and is now capable of "toeing the line" even though expressing a willingness to do so. Although she is a licence holder, she is not a health professional, for example, who might have treated or examined Mrs Pullicino and be able to give a properly informed opinion on these matters. I therefore could not be confident in accepting that Mrs Pullicino, according to Mrs Tyack, is indeed reformed.
Mrs Tyack accepted that the industry could not work properly unless there is honesty and respect for the authority of the stewards and for adherence to the rules and that the industry would suffer were it populated by those who had no respect for those matters.
Ms Braun submitted that Mrs Pullicino had demonstrated remorse for past disqualifications. I accept that she is remorseful. Having heard her give evidence, I am satisfied she is remorseful because it has meant she has been unable to do what she wants to do. Whilst she says she is sorry and has apologised for what she has done in the past, I am not satisfied she is sorry for any other reason than the impact these matters have had on her life. Her expressed remorse gave me no confidence that she was sorry for breaching the rules and has now fully acknowledged her wrongdoing. That this was the case was demonstrated by the responses she gave to the various breaches when they were put to her.
Ms Braun submitted that Mrs Pullicino's long record of success in harness racing was relevant to the broader public interest in her participation in the industry. Her successes she contended enhance and generate public interest and support for the industry. Thus her participation in racing is beneficial to the industry in general, as I understand the contention.
No one questions Mrs Pullicino's career successes and her skills. However, I do not accept that a driver's past success without any evidence of reform, of new found honesty and integrity, is a sufficient benefit and enhancement to the industry, such that a licence should be granted.
Ms Braun submitted with respect to the disqualification after 1999, that Mrs Pullicino's explanations for those breaches were plausible given her family's close involvement with Harness Racing. I reject that submission. None of her explanations rang true.
Ms Braun submitted that the passage of time was relevant in determining whether a person is a fit and proper person. I accept that it is now 10 years since Mrs Pullicino has been able to work and that it may have taken a substantial toll on her and her family. As I said earlier, it is always possible for a person by their good behaviour since their disqualification to show they have reformed themselves. I am not satisfied that Mrs Pullicino has so reformed. Her ongoing breaches whilst disqualified demonstrate she has not. I am not satisfied that the mere passage of time since she has been able to work is a sufficient reason to satisfy me that she should be given a "second chance" as Ms Braun contended.
Ms Braun submitted that Mrs Pullicino's record of offences was no worse when compared to others who were licensed. In her statement, Mrs Pullicino referred to the offence reports for GP Pullicino, AP Mifsud, C Romanidis and DR Wilson. The irony that several of these were relatives and supporters of Mrs Pullicino was not lost on Mr Smith. In the hearing, the records of A Tubbs and G Lang were referred to. In her submissions, Ms Braun also referred to Mr Schembri and Chris Mance (sic). As I understand the submission, it was that there are others with records as bad, if not worse, than Mrs Pullicino who are licensed and the relevant standard for assessing an application should be that of all individuals involved in the industry. Apart from the last person mentioned, whom I understand is not licensed in Victoria, an examination of those persons' records does not reveal they are as poor as Mrs Pullicino's. Further, I agree with Mr Smith that if there are indeed others that have a worse record, that is extremely unfortunate, but no reason to licence her. Again, I agree with Mr Smith that to do so for that reason would signal the end of the integrity of the industry.
In summary then, a licence application, as Mr Smith submitted, needs to be considered having regard to the whole picture. The mere expiration of a disqualification period does not mean that one automatically has a right to be licensed again.
I am not satisfied Mrs Pullicino should now be licensed. Her pattern of past offences is very serious. It reveals that Mrs Pullicino over a substantial period of time has not kept the rules, that she is dishonest and has no regard for the regulators of Harness Racing. She has already had many chances to show she is reformed but on her return from disqualification, she has again offended. Apart from Mrs Tyack's evidence on which I placed little weight, she has presented nothing but her own assertions that she is now a reformed person who has respect for and will abide by the rules, and those who regulate it. For an industry such as harness racing to operate properly, it is important that those who participate in it have respect for the authority of the stewards and adhere to the rules. I am not satisfied for the reasons set out above that Mrs Pullicino has that respect and would adhere to the rules. I am not satisfied she is a fit and proper person such that she should be granted the licence she seeks.