Tukel v Combat Sports Authority

Consideration

1. Pursuant to s 55 of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review "an administratively reviewable decision". An administratively reviewable decision is defined in s 7 of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act to be "a decision of an administrator over which the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction". Section 9 of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act provides that the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator "if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for an administrative review under this Act of any such decision".
2. Section 25 of the Combat Sports Act allows the Combat Sports Authority to determine whether to register an applicant as an industry participant of a specified registration class. Section 77(1) (d) of the Combat Sports Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to conduct administrative review of "reviewable decisions" made under s 25 of the Combat Sport Act.
3. It is noted that no internal review was conducted in relation to this decision. Section 78 of the Combat Sports Act excludes the requirement for an internal review to be finalised for this type of application.
4. In accordance with s 63 of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act the Tribunal is empowered to decide what the correct and preferable decision is, having regard to the material before it, including any relevant factual material and any law, and may exercise all relevant functions conferred or imposed on the Commissioner. In determining the application, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision and make a decision in its place, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Authority in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.
5. The respondents rely on open, as well as confidential evidence to establish that Mr Tukel is not a fit and proper person to be registered as an amateur and professional boxing and mixed martial arts trainer and second under the Combat Sports Act.
6. Mr Tukel, Angus Henderson and Detective Sergeant Bruce Groenewegen were cross examined at the hearing.
7. The respondent refers to several matters which they say amount to Mr Tukel not being a fit and proper person. I shall deal with each in turn.

Firearms Prohibition Order

1. Mr Tukel previously sought administrative review of the decision to issue him with a firearms prohibition order in separate proceedings in the Tribunal: Tukel v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 104. Those proceedings involved review of a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Police to issue a firearms prohibition order under section 73(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) against Mr Tukel. In the review firearms prohibition order proceedings, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to issue the firearms prohibition order. The parties agreed that the Tribunal could take into consideration the transcript of cross examination of witnesses in the firearms prohibition order proceedings.
2. The respondents submit that the fact that a firearms prohibition order is in place is relevant to whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. However, the respondents also place reliance on the material underpinning the making of the firearms prohibition order.
3. Mr Tukel submits that the Tribunal should place little weight on the fact that a firearms prohibition order has been imposed on him. Counsel for Mr Tukel submitted at the hearing, that the firearms prohibition order means that Mr Tukel is the subject of regular scrutiny and surveillance and that despite that scrutiny, it has not revealed he is involved in criminal activity.
4. Mr Tukel did not appeal the determination in Tukel v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 104 and the findings made in that determination have not been disturbed. The fact that a firearms prohibition order has been imposed is relevant to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person and the findings of the Tribunal in determining the administrative review of the firearms prohibition order are relevant to this determination.

Mr Tukel's previous membership of the Comanchero, an outlaw motorcycle gang

1. The respondents submit that Mr Tukel's previous involvement in the Comanchero, an outlaw motorcycle gang, creates risks to the integrity of contests as well as to the public perception of combat sports.
2. The respondents also submit that Mr Tukel has not been candid about his involvement in the Comanchero's, including that he was vice president from 2013 to 2014 and that he did not volunteer in evidence in chief that he held a role as President and that he has previously sought to downplay his role.
3. In his affidavit (Exhibit 16), affirmed 30 August 2021, Detective Sergeant Bruce Groenewegen provides evidence as an expert as to the characteristics of an outlaw motorcycle club gang. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen is attached to the Criminal Groups Squad of the State Crime Command. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen sets out in his report his experience and qualification relating to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I find that, Detective Sergeant Groenewegen experience relating to outlaw motorcycle gangs, is significant and includes working with various State crime gang squads since about 2004.
4. In his report, Detective Sergeant Groenewegen, sets out the reasons why he has formed the opinion that the Comanchero are an outlaw motorcycle gang and concludes that that in Australia, the Comanchero are considered by law enforcement to be a significant criminal threat and that the Australian Government has cancelled the visas of members of the Comanchero's on character grounds or mandatory cancellation under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
5. The respondents also refer to the authority of NSW Police Force v Bazzi [2021] NSWSC 1150, in which Bellew J found at [4] - [5] of the judgment that the Comanchero are an outlaw motorcycle gang.
6. I am satisfied on the evidence of Detective Sergeant Groenewegen and the authority in NSW Police Force v Bazzi that the Comanchero are an outlaw motorcycle gang.
7. The respondents submits that Mr Tukel has previously been a senior member of the Comanchero, including as the National President of the Australian Comanchero.
8. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen concludes that: Based on my experience, training and specialised knowledge of the Comanchero OMCG, its nature and distinguishing characteristics, and the information available to me, I am of the opinion that Fidel Tukel: (i) was a member of the Rebels OMCG from at least 2003 to at least 2006; (ii) is likely to have been a Nominee Member of the Comanchero during 2010; (iii) became a Full Member of the Comanchero in or about May 2011; (iv) was the Lieutenant of the Comanchero East Crew from at least 2013 to 2015; (v) has claimed to no longer be a Member of the Comanchero and to have signed a Statutory Declaration to that effect (although he has since denied signing a Statutory Declaration); (vi) in the absence of any verifiable information to the contrary, may still be a Full Member of the Comanchero, regardless of his unsubstantiated claims; (vii) if not a Full Member of the Comanchero, maintains close contact with senior and influential Members, particularly Office Bearers and by extension, the OMCG. This close contact is through: • having a long history of Membership; • earning a "COMOS" patch for "significant service"; • earning a "Loyalist" patch; • holding the rank of "Lieutenant", an office never recorded on any other Comanchero Member; • maintaining contact with senior and influential Members of the Comanchero, including Office Bearers; • holding National Office Bearer positions; and • having been permitted the rare status of Nomad Member
9. In Mr Tukel's affidavit (Exhibit 1), affirmed 26 July 2021, he denies he was a member of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang from at least 2003 to at least 2006 and states that his actual position was as a nominee for a period of 5 months and thereafter his association was terminated. He also denies being a Nominee Member of the Comanchero during 2010 and states he was a nominee for the month of March 2010.
10. Mr Tukel does admit that he became a full member of the Comanchero in or about May 2011 and that he was the Lieutenant of the Comanchero East Crew from at least 2013 to 2015.
11. He states that he is no longer a member of the Comancheros and that he returned his colours to Turkey and resigned in 2016. He denies he signed a statutory declaration confirming he ever resigned his position or that it was ever requested of him. Mr Tukel states that he advised a Detective Beeche that membership with the Comanchero's had been terminated and included the return of 'Colours' to Turkey. Mr Tukul denies he remains a full member of the Comanchero or that he maintains close contact with senior and influential members.
12. While there is some dispute regarding the details of Mr Tukel's involvement in outlaw motorcycle gangs, even on Mr Tukel's own evidence he was involved in outlaw motorcycle gangs and held a senior position in the Comanchero.

Ongoing Association with the Comanchero's

1. The respondents submit that Mr Tukel has an ongoing association with the Comanchero, either through ongoing membership or alternatively, Mr Tukel has an ongoing association with senior members of the Comanchero. They submit that Mr Tukel's ongoing association with senior members of the Comanchero raises a risk that Mr Tukel continues to be involved in the activities of the Comanchero (including criminal activities), which in turn creates risks to the integrity of combat sport contests. The respondents also submit that Mr Tukel's previous association contributes to a negative public perception of combat sports, which is detrimental to the promotion of combat sports.
2. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen states that although Mr Tukel denies that he has an ongoing association with the Comanchero, Mr Tukel may still be a full member of the Comanchero because it is difficult to verify whether he did in fact ever resign his position. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen's report details the brotherhood and loyalty on which an outlaw motorcycle gang is based. He states that leaving an outlaw motorcycle gang is not as simple as leaving any other kind of club or organisation and that even a retired member may remain subject to the authority of the gang's hierarchy and still be considered a member of the outlaw motorcycle gang. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen asserts that it is highly likely that a person leaving the Comanchero risks some form of censure.
3. The respondents submit that Mr Tukel has had contact with senior members of the Comanchero in recent times, including communications with Mark Buddle who is the international Commander of the Comanchero and senior members Pasilika Naufahu and Ali Bazzi.
4. The respondents concede that the records of those contacts do not indicate that the contact is frequent, however that the contact must be considered having regard to the culture of loyalty in outlaw motorcycles gangs and the history of Mr Tukel's involvement in Comanchero. Further they submit that the contact is with people who are at senior levels of Comanchero and that support that he has walked away from the Comanchero.
5. The respondents also submit that Mr Tukel's continued association with senior members of the Comanchero gives rise to a risk that Mr Tukel may become involved in criminal activity in future.
6. Mr Tukel denies that he continues to be a full member of the Comanchero. He submits that the firearms prohibition order, which he is subject to, allows ongoing surveillance of his activities by police and any association would have come to light if it existed. Mr Tukel submits that while the report of Detective Sergeant Groenewegen is voluminous, much of the activity referred to does not relate to Mr Tukel. He also submits that much of Detective Sergeant Groenewegen opinion is based on information gathered by others.
7. The respondents concede that Detective Sergeant Groenewegen's opinions are based on reports prepared by others, including police records and COPS statements. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen did not question the individuals who collected the information or prepared the underlying reports. Nevertheless, the respondents submit that this does not materially affect the strength of Detective Sergeant Groenewegen's conclusions.
8. I note that in the firearms prohibition order proceedings reasons for decision, the Tribunal summarised Mr Tukel's evidence at [50] - [59]: He left on good terms with the Comancheros and is able to continue to communicate with members of the organisation. He is able to send casual text messages to Comanchero members and he continues to talk to members casually. He communicates with them as people as distinct from in their roles as Comanchero members. The line of communication is still open. He visited Turkey in March 2017, and while he was there he caught up for dinner with Mark Buddle, Daux Ngakuru, Baris Tukel and other Comanchero Members. He had lunch with Mark Buddle at a Thai restaurant in Dubai in December 2017. His last contact with Mark Buddle was a message left on Facebook in about 2018. He last spent time with Ali Bazzi at a 'running of the bulls' event in Guadalajara, Spain in around 2015/2016. He also met another Comanchero in Spain at that time, a Samoan known as Samson. He has not had a falling out with Ali Bazzi and he exchanges text messages with him. The most recent was during Ramadan in 2021. He sent a text to Ali Bazzi passing on condolences when his father died in late 2019 or early 2020. He sometimes says hello on WhatsApp or text. He acknowledged that Baris Tukel was an international Nomad with the Comancheros and that the role has significance and importance in the Comancheros. The Nomad is able to resolve conflicts between different chapters of the organisation and to represent the Comancheros to outsiders. He claims that he stopped talking to Baris in 2018/2019. His last contact with Hakan Tukel was in March 2018 at an eighteenth birthday party for Hakan Tukel's son. On that occasion, the Applicant and Hakan had a disagreement when the Applicant wanted to give Hakan Tukel's son a new vehicle for his birthday. He is aware that Pasilika Naufahu was deported from Australia, was the National President of the New Zealand Comancheros and is now serving a prison sentence for his activities. The Applicant travelled to Auckland in early 2016 where he caught up with Pasilika Naufahu. He travelled to New Zealand in July/August 2016 to introduce Pasilika Naufahu to people that the Applicant knew and to make sure he was comforted. The Applicant is a godparent to Pasilika Naufahu's oldest son; and the Applicant's wife continues to maintain a close relationship with Pasilika Naufahu's wife Emma. Emma and Pasilika Naufahu's children visit the Applicant's house when they come to Sydney. The Applicant agreed that being a godparent is a serious obligation; and that he continues to uphold that relationship and obligation. In recent years he has travelled to New Zealand regularly, mostly to Palmerton North via Wellington. He also travelled to Queenstown in July 2016. The Applicant is a relative of Hakan Ayik. His last contact with Hakan Ayik was a chance meeting in June/July 2015 when he saw him while in a coffee shop in Istanbul.
9. The Tribunal found at [75] - [78] of the reasons for decision that: The Applicant's evidence is that he ended his association with the Comancheros in April 2016 and that in December 2016 he handed in his colours. However, his own evidence is that in March 2017 he visited Turkey and while he was there he caught up for dinner with Mark Buddle, Daux Ngakuru, Baris Tukel and other Comanchero Members. He also had lunch with Mark Buddle in Dubai in December 2017. In my view, these meetings can be categorised as associating with OMCG members as discussed in Azzopardi. … It is not clear on the evidence that the Applicant continues to be a member of the Comancheros. However, on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Applicant has continued to associate with senior members of the club. I agree with the views expressed in Azzopardi that this association may be a source of public risk in relation to firearm possession. I agree that where an applicant voluntarily associates with persons having significant criminal histories or involvement with criminal organisations and activities, that association may create the danger to public safety with which the Commissioner is concerned.
10. While I accept that the test applied in relation to administrative review of a decision relating the imposition of a firearms prohibition order is different to the one to be applied in this review, The Tribunal's finding in the administrative review of the firearms prohibition order, have not been disturbed and are relevant to these proceedings in the determination as to whether Mr Tukel has an ongoing association with senior members of the Comancheros.
11. Counsel for Mr Tukel submitted that if Mr Tukel continued to be involved with the Comanchero, it would be mysterious as to how Mr Tukel could avoid detection in circumstances of such intense surveillance by way of the firearms prohibition order.
12. I have also reviewed the open and confidential evidence and find that Mr Tukel has had an ongoing association with senior members of the Comanchero.

Association with Mark Buddle

1. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen outline Mr Tukel's ongoing association with Mark Buddle in his report. At pages 240, 297, 312 and 300 of his report, Detective Sergeant Groenewegen details evidence of Mr Buddle's involvement with the Comanchero. Mr Buddle has been a member of the Comanchero since at least 2006. He has held senior positions within the Comanchero from at least early 2012, including as former National President of the Australian Comanchero.
2. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen refers to an information report recorded in the NSW Police database that on 3 September 2018 that police stopped and spoke to Mr Tukel at Maroubra. At the time Mr Tukel was not wearing Comanchero supporter clothing, however he was going to the funeral of the mother of Mr Buddle. Mr Tukel told police he has no official club association. He stated he was attending the funeral out of respect.

Association with Pasilika Naufahu

1. At pages 297, 298, 300 and 301 of Detective Sergeant Groenewegen's affidavit, he outlines Mr Naufahu's involvement with the Comanchero. Mr Naufahu was previously the National Commander of the Comanchero and was subsequently deported to New Zealand from Australia in early 2016. After his deportation, Mr Naufahu set up the New Zealand chapter of the Comanchero and became National President of that chapter. Mr Naufahu has since been sentenced to jail.
2. The transcript of the firearms prohibition order proceedings (Exhibit 17) reveals that in cross-examination, Mr Tukel was asked about his ongoing association with Mr Naufahu. Mr Tukel is the godparent of one of Mr Naufahu's children and in relation to Mr Naufahu's wife and children Mr Tukul stated: … And if they have been here in the past few years, they have come over to my house - well, I mean the children and Emma, his wife, for a barbeque or just to come to say hi maybe on two occasions

Association with Ali Bazzi

1. Detective Sergeant Groenewegen evidence is that Mr Bazzi has been a member of the Comanchero since at least 2012. He was possibly the Commander of the Sydney Chapter of the Comanchero in 2016 and the interim National Commander of the Comanchero in 2017. He is currently a senior member of the Comanchero.
2. The transcript of the firearms prohibition order proceedings reveals that in cross examination Mr Tukel explained that when Mr Bazzi's father passed away a few years ago, Mr Tukel messaged Mr Bazzi to give his condolences. Mr Tukel also confirmed that in that in 2021 Mr Bazzi sent Mr Tukel a message during Ramadan to which he replied, "hope all is well".

Baris Tukel

1. Baris Tukel is Mr Tukel's younger brother. In the transcript of the firearms prohibition order proceedings, Mr Tukel indicated that his brother Baris Tukel holds the role of Nomad in the international Comanchero where he does not have any allegiance to any one chapter.

Does Mr Tukel have an ongoing Association with the Comanchero?

1. I note Detective Sergeant Groenewegen evidence regarding the obstacles in leaving an outlaw motorcycle gang and the culture of loyalty and brotherhood underlying outlaw motorcycle gangs. It is unlikely, in the circumstances described by Detective Sergeant Groenewegen, that Mr Tukel, who by his own admissions held a senior position in the Comanchero, simply resigned his position by returning his colours. Having regard to the confidential and open evidence, I accept that it is more likely that Mr Tukel took those steps and has stopped wearing Comanchero colours and openly associating with the Comanchero to avoid police detection.
2. Even if I am wrong regarding the status of Mr Tukel's membership in the Comanchero, I find from both the open and confidential evidence, that Mr Tukel continues to have an ongoing association with senior members of the Comanchero. The evidence reveals that Mr Tukel continues to maintain a relationship which warranted him having a sense of obligation to attend Mark Buddle's mothers funeral where other Comanchero were present and continues at least to have some contact with other senior members of the Comanchero or their families. I accept that on the evidence before me, that contact is sporadic and limited. I also note Mr Tukel's submissions that had there been an involvement with the Comanchero, then that would have come to the attention of authorities because of the firearms prohibition order to which he is subject. However, I am also mindful that Mr Tukel knows he is under the surveillance by way of a firearms prohibition order and that an association within outlaw motorcycle gang attracts attention and that there is at least some risk that there is more contact that has gone undetected by surveillance.

Mr Tukel's conduct as a trainer or second without registration

1. The respondents submit that Mr Tukel acted as a trainer or second without registration, contrary to the prohibition in s 20(1) of the Combat Sports Act. They submit that gives rise to a risk that Mr Tukel will not comply with the relevant rules and requirements when acting as a registered trainer or second.
2. 'Trainer' is defined in the Combat Sports Act as "an individual who supervises the training or instruction of a combatant or who accompanies a combatant into or onto the contest area to give advice or assistance during a combat sport contest" (s 6(1)(c)). 'Second' is defined as an individual who assists a combatant as advised by a trainer and who assists a trainer in the preparation of combatants (s 6(1)(d)). A person may be an industry participant for the purposes of the Combat Sports Act, regardless of whether they are employed or engaged on a full-time basis, and regardless of whether they receive payment or other consideration for the activity concerned (s 6(1)).
3. The respondents submit that Mr Tukel has acted as an industry participant without registration and has acted as a trainer and/or a second to registered combatants Luke Jackson, Paulo Aokuso and Jackson Murray in contravention of the Combat Sports Act.
4. Mr Tukel submits that he has been the subject of an investigation regarding the alleged breaches and no breach was found. Counsel for Mr Tukel also submits that no prosecution was commenced against Mr Tukel, in circumstances where the Combat Sports Authority had the force of legislation to prosecute Mr Tukel. Counsel also submitted that Mr Tukel cannot be expected to answer an allegation that is not specific and only indicated that Mr Tukel 'may' have been carrying out activities.
5. Mr Tukel refers to two letters which are annexed to the affidavit of Angus Henderson, affirmed 11 May 2022 (Exhibit 14). Mr Henderson is a Combat Sports Inspector and compliance and enforcement office with the Office of Sport. The first letter, dated 4 November 2021, was sent from the Crown Solicitor's officer, on behalf of the Combat Sports Authority. The letter is addressed to Mr Tukel's solicitor and refers to an earlier email which had been sent from Mr Tukel's solicitor in which the solicitor had stated: Mr Tukel is training boxers at the moment for competition and has one listed for competition on 11 December but not having a trainers registration he will be unable to be in the boxer's corner at the event.
6. The letter reminds Mr Tukel that he is prohibited, pursuant to s 20(1) of the Combat Sports Act from supervising the training or instruction of a combatant, assisting a trainer in the preparation of combatants and assisting a combatant as advised by a trainer. The letter also states that Mr Tukel is not obliged to make submissions or respond to the letter and that the letter may be used in Tribunal proceedings.
7. The second letter is dated 10 November 2021 and is from Mr Henderson to Mr Tukel. Mr Henderson states: It appears, from information received by the authority, that you may be carrying out activities as an industry participant (trainer and second) in breach of s 20(1 of the Act and that you intend to continue to carry out these activities in the future. Information suggests that you may be supervising training of combatants in preparation for upcoming professional boxing contests to be held on 17 November 2021 and 11 December 2021.
8. Counsel for Mr Tukel submitted that under cross examination, Mr Henderson was not a credible witness, his evidence was not feasible, and that the Tribunal should not place a great deal of weight on it. Counsel submits that the cross examination of Mr Henderson reveals that Mr Henderson's keeping of records was sloppy and that he got dates wrong and mixed-up venues. Counsel also submits that Mr Henderson attributed things to Mr Tukel which were wrong.
9. Mr Henderson did make some errors in his recollection of dates. The first was that he stated a date of 16 May 2022 when it was 29 May 2022. The second was that that it was revealed that a date in his notebook was 2019 not 2020. I accept there were some errors regarding Mr Henderson's recollection of dates in his statement and regarding the location of a venue, which became apparent in cross examination. However, I do not accept that those errors in recollection affect the overall credibility of Mr Henderson's evidence.

Luke Jackson

1. In the documents lodged pursuant to s58 of the Administrative Decsions Review Act (Exhibit 13), contain a letter from Mr Tukel's solicitor to the Combat Sports Authority dated 15 December 2020. The letter is sent in the lead up to a contest between Luke Jackson and Tyson Lantry on 16 December 2020. In the letter, Mr Tukel's solicitor enquires about the progress of Mr Tukel's application for registration. The letter also notes that Mr Tukel had donated his time to ensure that Luke Jackson has trained and is ready to compete at the Sydney Super Fight.
2. Mr Henderson states that, on 16 December 2020, he attended the 'Sydney Super Fight' contest between Mr Jackson and Mr Lantry. Mr Henderson observed Mr Tukel in Mr Jackson's dressing room prior to the contest commencing, speaking with Mr Jackson and holding pads. He also saw Mr Tukel walk with Mr Jackson from the dressing rooms to the contest.
3. Mr Henderson has also annexed to his affidavit, media articles that were published in The Australian and The Daily Telegraph newspapers in the lead up to the contest which described Mr Jackson as being "under the guidance of new trainers Fidel Tukel and Adam Thompson".
4. The documents lodged pursuant to s 58 also contain an email dated 22 February 2021, from Mr Tukel's solicitor to the Office of Sport in which his solicitor states: Mr Tukel is continuing his training of Mr Luke Jackson however it is a serious detriment to Mr Jackson's boxing career not to have his trainer to be able to give instructions to Mr Jackson prior to the start and during the round breaks.

Jackson Murray

1. Mr Henderson, annexes to his affidavit a social media post from 10 October 2021 in which Mr Murray reposts a post from the fiddy_fiteklub, an Instagram account belonging to Mr Tukel, in which Jackson Murray is welcomed to the Fiteklub family.
2. Mr Henderson also includes other social media posts, from October 2021 to February 2022 that tag the @fiddy_fiteklub Instagram account as being part of Mr Murray's team and several posts that refer to @fiddy_fiteklub as being Mr Murray's "coach" or "trainer". Some social media posts that show Mr Tukel engaged in training sessions with Mr Murray, including in the lead up to a fight between Mr Murray and Shant Nercessian on 17 November 2021 and another fight between Mr Murray and David Tuliloa on 21 December 2021. Mr Tukel is pictured holding pads and bags for Mr Murray and engaging in pad work in a boxing ring. The respondents submit that these activities would fall within the definition of acting as a "trainer" or alternatively a "second".

Paulo Aokuso

1. Mr Henderson annexes an article published in the Daily Telegraph on 10 December 2021, which states that Paulo Aokuso; has relocated to Sydney to work with trainers Lincoln Hudson and Fidel Tukel
2. Mr Henderson also includes a screenshot of a social media post from Mr Murray which links Mr Aokuso to @fiddy_fiteklub. Mr Henderson refers to an Instagram post headed 'contracted fighter announcement' from the @fiddy_fiteklub account which describe Mr Aokuso as having become 'part of the Fiteklub stable with myself and @justhavenago'.
3. Mr Henderson also includes social media posts from December 2021 to April 2022 that show Mr Tukel engaged in training sessions with Mr Aokuso and Mr Tukel photographed holding pads for Mr Aokuso and engaging in pad work.
4. Mr Henderson states that on 5 April 2022, he attended the weigh-in for a boxing contest between Paolo Aokuso and Michael Van Nimwegen which was scheduled to take place on the following day. Mr Aokuso was accompanied at the weigh-in by Mr Tukel.
5. At the boxing contest on the following day, Mr Henderson saw Mr Tukel walk with Mr Aokuso from the dressing rooms to the contest, and then sit in the contest area. Shortly after the contest, the applicant entered the ring and appeared to congratulate Mr Aokuso.
6. Mr Henderson states that he heard the announcer introducing Mr Aokuso as trained by Mr Tukel. The respondents concede that this was based on a script prepared by No Limits Boxing.
7. The respondents also refer to a video annexed to affidavit of Sophie May Roden, affirmed dated 20 June 2022 (Exhibit 15). In the video, which is downloaded from an Instagram post from a Joel Cama, it shows Mr Tukel wearing a 'Team Aokuso' t-shirt. Mr Tukel is seen holding mitts for Mr Aokuso and speaking to Mr Aokuso in the dressing room prior to the contest. Mr Tukel also accompanies Mr Aokuso to the contest area and poses with him as he lifts up the ropes to the ring to assist Mr Aokuso to enter the ring, Mr Tukel enters the ring after the end of the contest.
8. In a social media post by Mr Aokuso after the event he thanked Mr Tukel as part of his team.

Has Mr Tukel breached the Combat Sports Act?

1. Section 20 of the Combat Sports Act requires that industry participants and promoters must be registered. A breach of that provision attracts criminal penalties including up to 6 months imprisonment. Section 21 of the Combat Sports Act prohibits an unauthorised person holding themselves out as being industry participants or promoters and that also attracts criminal penalties including imprisonment.
2. Industry participants are relevantly defined under s 6 of the Combat Sports Act as follows: … (c) an individual who supervises the training or instruction of a combatant or who accompanies a combatant into or onto the contest area to give advice or assistance during a combat sport contest (a trainer), (d) an individual who assists a combatant as advised by a trainer and who assists a trainer in the preparation of combatants (a second), …
3. Contest area is defined in s4 of the Combat Sports Act as: contest area means the competition area for a combat sport contest and includes any area between the area in which the contest takes place and any structure or other barrier between the combatants and spectators.
4. Having considered the legislation and the evidence, I find that Mr Tukel has breached the prohibition in the Combat Sports Act, by holding himself out to be a trainer or a second for the purposes of a combat sport contest.
5. The fact that Mr Tukel was not charged in relation to an offence, does not establish that he has not breached the Combat Sports Act. I note that the standard of proof in relation to a criminal penalty and in relation to administrative review are different.
6. I find that Mr Tukel has not be open and credible in his evidence. Having reviewed the video in relation to Mr Aokuso, referred to at [76] above, I find from Mr Tukel's actions of holding the pads for Mr Aokuso before the fight, accompanying Mr Aokuso to the ring, holding the rope for him to get inside the ring and from the various social media posts that Mr Tukel had been acting as trainer or second for Mr Aokuso's. Consistent with that and the other evidence, it is also likely that Mr Tukel been acting as a trainer or second to Luke Jackson and Jackson Murray.

Character Witnesses

1. Mr Tukel relies on the following character references from other participants in the boxing industry as well as other sports: 1. Character reference: Jeff Fenech dated 23 July 2021 (Exhibit 3) 2. Character reference: Johnny Lewis dated 14 July 2021 (Exhibit 4) 3. Character reference: Will Thomlinson dated 15 July 2021(Exhibit 5) 4. Character reference: Jarrod Frykberg dated 15 July 2021 (Exhibit 6) 5. Character reference: Eva Karpani dated 15 July 2021 (Exhibit 7) 6. Character reference: Danny Green dated 15 July 2021 (Exhibit 8) 7. Character reference: Kennedy Cherrington dated 25 July 2021 (Exhibit 9) 8. Character reference: Jim Dymock dated 26 July 2021 (Exhibit 10) 9. Character reference: Mark Harrison dated 27 July 2021 (Exhibit 11) 10. Character reference: Michael Doyle dated 27 July 2021 (Exhibit 12)
2. Mr Tukel submits that the Tribunal should place significant weight on those references as they are from people generally involved in the industry or other sporting activities and that their evidence has not been challenged because they were not required by the respondents for cross examination. Mr Tukel submits that the references are from people who are of varying ages and genders and from people who have knowledge of Mr Tukel's past. Counsel for the applicant submits that Mr Tukel is a man who has given much to many over a lengthy period, training people with diverse activities both nationally and internationally.
3. The respondents submit that the references should be given little weight because none of the referees appear to have any knowledge of the extent of the applicant's past involvement and roles with the Comanchero. The references also do not address the applicant's ongoing association with senior members of the Comanchero.
4. Kennedy Cherrington, who is a Rugby player provides a statement dated 25 July 2021. Ms Cherrington states that she first met Mr Tukel in 2017 and subsequently she lived with Mr Tukel and his family for two years after he helped her move from Perth to Sydney. She concludes: From what I seen Fidel was either with his family being a great father, volunteering and /or coaching at our rugby club with our teams almost every day, so there is no known knowledge of association with any motorcycle clubs.
5. Danny Green provides a reference dated 15 July 2021. He is presently a boxing manager and promoter. Mr Green states that he first met Mr Tukel in 2008 and they worked on events until 2013. He states that Mr Tukel coaches and mentors many young members of the community through his extensive coaching roles in women's rugby league and boxing. Mr Green also states that he is aware that Mr Tukel was a member of the Comanchero and understands the reason he became involved was to protect his younger brother. Mr Green continues: This may not have been the best choice for Fidel, but his protective and caring nature prevailed. I know that I would do almost anything to protect my own brother. I know that he stepped away from the club in 2016 with no strings attached.
6. I am not persuaded that the reasons given by Mr Green, as to why Mr Tukel joined the Comanchero are at all convincing. It is difficult to understand how Mr Tukel's brother's involvement in the Comanchero would warrant Mr Tukel joining the Comanchero or more particularly rising to one of its most senior position's.
7. In a statement dated 15 July 2021, William Tomlinson, a former boxer, states that: To my Knowledge Fidel has not been involved or associated with any motor cycle clubs since 2015. Even when there was alleged association it was something that never impacted our working relationship or friendship.
8. Counsel for Mr Tukel emphasised the reference from Jeff Fenech who is a three-time world boxing champion and has been indited into the 'International Boxing Hall of Fame.' Mr Fenech's statement is dated 23 July 2021 and he states that he is aware of Mr Fidel's past membership of the Comanchero. Mr Fenech concludes his short statement, stating: My association with Fidel has been all about helping and giving young men and women the opportunity to achieve what they believe in. over the last couple of years I have been lucky enough to spend time with him and see how much he loves the sport of boxing. I myself was given a second chance and went on to create history in Australian Boxing., so why should we deny someone who I believe would only be a benefit to our great sport.
9. I have reviewed all the references Mr Tukel has provided. I accept they all speak in glowing terms regarding Mr Tukel's character. However, those references have been provided on the belief that Mr Tukel is no longer associated with the Comanchero and are presumably based on what Mr Tukel has told the referees. Nothing on the face of the references describes that the referees have detailed knowledge about the scope of Mr Tukel's activities in the Comanchero.

Confidential hearing and evidence

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
4. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
5. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Conclusion on fit and proper person

1. The Combat Sports Authority may only register an applicant as an industry participant of a specified registration class if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant of that class - ss 25 (1)(b) and 25 (2) (a) of the Combat Sports Act.
2. Registration is not a right. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that: "The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive, but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question."
3. The concept of a fit and proper, takes meaning from statutory context and the nature of the activities that are being regulated.
4. Section 25 of the Combat Sports Act provides for a discretion in deciding whether to register an applicant and relevantly provides: (1) The Authority may register an applicant as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class if the Authority is satisfied of the following: … (b) that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter of that class, …. (2) The Authority must refuse to register an applicant as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class if: (a) it is not satisfied of the matters specified in subsection (1), or (b) the applicant is a controlled member of a declared organisation under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012, or Note - Controlled members are prohibited from applying for registration - see section 27 of the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012. (c) an adverse security determination has been made by the Commissioner of Police about the applicant, or …
5. Sub sections 25(2) (b) and (c) evidence an intention by the legislation to keep criminal activity out of the combat sport industry.
6. The is further reinforced by the objectives of the Combat Sports Act as outlined in s 3 and are as follows: (a) to promote the health and safety of combat sport contestants, (b) to promote the integrity of combat sport contests, (c) to regulate combat sport contests on a harm minimisation basis, (d) to promote the development of the combat sport industry.
7. Sections 26, 43 62(3), 65, 80, 83 and 94 also evidence an intention of the legislation to regulate criminal and illegal activities.
8. That intention is also supported by the second reading speech in relation to the introduction of the Combat Sports Bill in which the following was stated: … New South Wales police are a key regulatory partner under the new bill, with a nominee of the Commissioner of Police restored to the Combat Sports Authority, after the 2008 Act removed the requirement for police membership. There is no room for organised crime in the combat sports industry or in the gyms where combatants train. Police are being given new powers to work with the Combat Sports Authority to keep criminals out of the sport. Schedule 3.2 to the bill amends the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 to prevent a person subject to that Act from being registered under this bill and future Act in any capacity. Promoters, matchmakers and managers are most likely to profit from combat sport and have the greatest capacity to affect the integrity of contests. It is not unusual for a person to be registered in all three of these roles. Adopting the model used in the Tattoo Parlours Act, clause 26 of the bill requires that promoters, managers and matchmakers are subject to a security determination by the Commissioner of Police. The commissioner may determine that a person cannot be registered in those roles on fit and proper person or public interest grounds, and the Combat Sports Authority must, under clause 25 (2), enforce that determination. The commissioner may consider criminal record information, including spent convictions, and police intelligence in making such an important determination. New South Wales police will monitor criminal records and intelligence in respect of all registered promoters, managers and matchmakers, and the commissioner may make an adverse security determination at any time in accordance with clause 34. The Combat Sports Authority must cancel a registration where this occurs. Clauses 77 and 78 allow adverse security determinations to be reviewed by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal while protecting sensitive police information. Persons registering in other roles will also be subject to a fit and proper person assessment, which will be undertaken by the authority and include checks on previous compliance with combat sports regulatory requirements, training requirements and any relevant information that police may provide. … Police will consider all applications to hold combat sports events in accordance with the police events policy, and clause 43 requires the authority to notify police of all permits for combat sports events. Clause 45 gives police new powers, exercisable by an officer of or above the rank of assistant commissioner, to cancel combat sport contests where police have public health or safety, or significant property damage concerns. Outlaw motorcycle gang members often attend combat sport contests and if police receive intelligence that rival gangs are planning to confront each other at an event police can shut down the event. Police officers attending contests have similar powers, at clause 62, to stop contests from proceeding. … Part 4 of the bill replaces the current disqualification provisions of the Act with prohibition orders, which may be imposed on unregistered persons. The Combat Sports Authority may make orders under section 74 to prevent persons from engaging in contests or sparring, arranging or holding contests, being involved in the combat sports industry, attending premises where contests or weigh-ins are being held, or attending gyms and other places where combat sport training occurs. The powers to prevent attendance are similar to "warning off" powers in the racing industry and may be used to keep persons with known criminal associations away from contests and gyms. Police will be a key partner in prohibition order proceedings of this kind. This significant change will markedly extend the ability of the Combat Sports Authority to deal with integrity issues that occur outside the contest environment.
9. Having considered the legislative framework and the open and confidential evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr Tukel is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant under the Combat Sports Act. In summary that is because: 1. Mr Tukel is the subject of an firearms prohibition order. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to impose a firearms prohibition order. The proceedings were not appealed by Mr Tukel. It is a matter of public record that Mr Tukel is subject of a firearms prohibition order. Were Mr Tukel granted registration as an industry participant, the fact that he is presently subject to as firearms prohibition order, would have reputational consequences for combat sports. 2. Mr Tukel has held himself out to be an industry participant without registration. The evidence demonstrates that those breaches took place in circumstances where letters from Mr Tukel's solicitors demonstrated that he knew that he was required to be registered to carry out activities as an industry participant. 3. Mr Tukel has previously been a member of the Comanchero for at least a period and has held senior office bearing roles. Given the evidence regarding the difficulties in leaving an outlaw motorcycle gang and the inability to verify that Mr Tukel has left the Comanchero, there remains some risk that Mr Tukel continues to be involved or may be involved in the Comanchero, even though he asserts that he is no longer a member. 4. Even if Mr Tukel is no longer a member of the Comanchero, his continued association with its most senior members gives rise to a risk that he is, or may become, involved in the activities of the Comanchero.
10. The references provide by Mr Tukel do not outweigh those matters.
11. The potential involvement of persons associated with organised crime undermines the objects of the Combat Sports Act. The prevention of the involvement of criminal elements in the combat sports industry is a key focus of the Combat Sports Act. Mr Tukel, has held a senior role in a criminal organisation with a reputation for violence and strong links to drug activity. That would create a perception that organised crime is involved in combat sports, and that the combat sports industry is linked to violence and crime. That perception undermines the statutory objective of developing the combat sport industry.
12. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that Mr Tukel is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant in the classes for which he has applied for registration.

Orders

1. The Tribunal makes the following order: 1. The decision under review is affirmed. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 July 2023