1. Under section 51(2)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the respondent's decision of 21 December 2023 to refuse Vince Tullio's application for registration as a trainer is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted back to Greyhound Racing Victoria with the direction that Vince Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer under Local Racing Rules rule 16.1.3 and that Vince Tullio's application not be refused under Local Racing Rules rule 16.1.3.

Mr L Hogan of Counsel instructed by Mr L Balbata, solicitor, Balbata & Associates.

Ms S Pathan of Counsel instructed by Ms Y Podolskaya, Greyhound Racing Victoria.

1. This is a review of a decision by Greyhound Racing Victoria ('GRV') to refuse to register Mr Vince Tullio ('Mr Tullio' or 'the applicant') as a trainer, as it did not consider that he was a fit and proper person to be registered.
2. The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferrable decision is to set aside the decision under review as advised on 21 December 2023, refusing to grant the applicant registration as a trainer, and to remit the matter back to GRV with the direction that Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person under Local Racing Rules ('LR') rule 16.1.3 and that his application not be refused under LR 16.1.3.

1. Mr Tullio was first registered as a greyhound owner in June 2015 and as a trainer in July 2016.
2. On 9 June 2021, Mr Tullio's registration as a trainer was subject to a steward's immediate suspension. On 11 April 2022, the Victorian Racing Tribunal (the 'VRT') disqualified Mr Tullio as a trainer for a period of eight months.
3. On 9 August 2022, after the expiry of his period of disqualification, Mr Tullio applied for registration as a trainer.
4. On 12 December 2023, the Board of GRV made a decision refusing to register Mr Tullio as a trainer, as it considered he was not a fit and proper person to be registered.
5. On 21 December 2023, the GRV wrote to Mr Tullio to inform him of the decision to refuse to register him as a trainer.
6. Also on 21 December 2023, Mr Tullio lodged an application with this Tribunal for a review of the decision to refuse to register him as a trainer.
7. On 31 January 2024, GRV filed with the Tribunal a section 49 statement.
8. On 7 June 2024, the parties filed with the Tribunal a joint electronic Tribunal Book. GRV later filed an affidavit from Mr Shane O'Connell, the Executive General Manager, Integrity and Welfare at GRV.
9. The matter came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 18 and 19 March 2025. Mr Tullio gave evidence and was cross-examined. He also called three character witnesses. Mr O'Connell gave evidence for GRV and was cross-examined. The parties each relied upon various documents contained in the Tribunal Book and a written outline of submissions.
10. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision.

1. Section 83Q of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic), relevantly states:

In the case of an occupational racing licence, a person may apply to VCAT for review of -

(a) A decision to refuse an application for such a licence; or

...

1. Section 83P of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) relevantly provides that an occupational racing licence includes any licence or registration required under the rules made by the controlling body for a person to participate in any occupation in racing.
2. Section 77 of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) relevantly provides for GRV to make rules to license or register any greyhound racing participant.
3. Rule 15.1 of the LR relevantly provides:

15.1 A person must be registered with the Controlling Body to be, to undertake the activities of, or act as, an Owner, Trainer, Catcher, Attendant, Studmaster or Breeder of a greyhound.

16 Registration eligibility

16.1 A person is not eligible for registration with the Controlling Body under the Local Rules unless the person satisfies the Board that:

16.1.1 the person is over the age of 18 years, or if seeking registration only as a Catcher or an Attendant, over the age of 14 years;

16.1.2 the person's principal place of residence is in the State of Victoria;

16.1.3 the person is a fit and proper person to be registered in the category of registration sought, having regard to all matters relevant to the category of registration, which may include the person's character, reputation, honesty, integrity, criminal history and the person's history in relation to animal welfare;

16.1.4 the person has attained the experience and/or training prescribed by the Controlling Body for registration in the relevant category or the Controlling Body is satisfied that the person will attain that experience and/or training within a reasonable time;

16.1.5 any premises required for, or used in connection with, an activity in relation to the proposed category of registration is fit for purpose;

16.1.6 the Controlling Body has not refused an application for registration related to the person in the six months preceding the date that the application was lodged;

16.1.7 the person has not plead guilty or had a finding of guilt for any offence provided for by legislation directed at the prevention of cruelty to animals in any jurisdiction, or that would, if occurring in Victoria, be a breach of any legislation directed at the prevention of cruelty to animals;

16.1.8 the person has complied with any other requirements, including any additional eligibility requirements, prescribed by the Controlling Body from time to time for registration in the relevant category.

1. The High Court has considered the meaning of fit and proper person, in another legislative context, as follows:[1]

The expression "fit and proper", 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 engaged in those activities. However, depending on the nature of those 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. 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.

1. The context in the present matter is the Racing Act 1958 (Vic), and includes the integrity of the racing industry, the health and welfare of animals and the protection of the public. A trainer must be a fit and proper person to train and care for greyhounds, enter and run greyhounds in races at public race meetings in the context of the public betting on the results of races and the need for public confidence in the sport of greyhound racing and the care of animals. The role, responsibilities and privileges of a trainer in greyhound racing, cause the qualities of honesty and integrity to be particularly important.
2. The Tribunal's role when reviewing a decision under section 83Q of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) and section 51 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ('VCAT Act') is to make the correct and preferable decision exercising all the powers and functions of GRV. The Tribunal's powers include affirming or varying the decision under review or setting it aside and substituting it with another decision or setting it aside and remitting it back to the GRV for reconsideration with or without directions.

Mr Tullio's history in the greyhound racing industry

1. The Tribunal is required to consider whether Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a greyhound racing trainer and the matters to be considered in doing so include his character, reputation, honesty, integrity, criminal history and his history in relation to animal welfare. GRV raised a number of matters to be considered in making the assessment.
2. It is noted that GRV has expressly stated that, in relation to the assessment as to whether Mr Tulio is a fit and proper person, it does not rely on any allegation that Mr Tullio has been involved in the export of greyhounds out of Australia, that he has refused to provide information about his involvement with a Mr Gao and Mr Gao's involvement in exporting of dogs from Australia or that Mr Tullio failed to provide a PIN for his mobile phone when requested to do so by the stewards. The Tribunal does not need to further consider these matters. The Tribunal notes that Mr Gao appears to be a person interested in greyhound racing who lives in China.

Criminal offences of burglary, theft and criminal damage and related conduct

1. The first issue raised by GRV is that on 6 June 2021, Mr Tullio committed the criminal offences of burglary, theft and criminal damage, which involved the theft of two greyhounds. Mr Tullio broke into a property by prying open and damaging a section of metal fence and stole the two greyhounds. The combined value of the greyhounds was approximately $44,000.00. Mr Tullio sent text messages to the victims, demanding payment and threatening to notify the GRV, the CEO of a greyhound racing club and the public via Facebook. He also threatened the victims in a text message by stating, 'I will destroy you and your husband as you are thieving disgusting people'.
2. On 8 June 2021, GRV representatives attended Mr Tullio's home. Mr Tullio gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was not home when GRV arrived, but told a friend by telephone to move the two stolen dogs from the kennels in his yard into his house. Mr Tullio acknowledged that he did this, as he knew that the GRV could not legally enter his house. GRV arranged for police to attend and the stolen dogs were recovered from Mr Tullio's house.
3. Mr Tullio was charged with and pleaded guilty to offences under the Greyhound Australasia Rules (GAR) and the LR, being:
   1. Wilfully obstructing and impeding GRV stewards from conducting a kennel inspection and instructing a person to move greyhounds from his kennels into his house;
   2. Possessing two stolen greyhounds;
   3. Making demands of payment of approximately $43,500.00 in exchange for the return of two stolen greyhounds and sending threatening messages to the victims; and
   4. An unrelated charge of failing to notify the GRV of the deaths of five greyhounds between 24 August 2018 and 21 June 2019.
4. On 11 April 2022, the VRT found Mr Tullio guilty of the four charges and disqualified him from registration as a trainer for a period of eight months.
5. On 17 October 2022, Mr Tullio pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria ('Magistrates' Court') to the criminal offences of burglary, theft and criminal damage regarding the theft of the two greyhounds on 6 June 2021. He was found guilty and fined $2,500.00 without conviction.
6. The GRV submitted to this Tribunal that Mr Tullio's criminal history weighs heavily in this matter. It submitted that Mr Tullio has displayed a lack of insight and remorse for his conduct and this is evidenced by his reliance on the fact that the Court did not register a conviction against Mr Tullio on the criminal charges and that he has sought to justify the conduct. Although, Mr Tullio admitted that the offending was wrong, he continues to justify and defend the offending.
7. The GRV submitted that if Mr Tulio's evidence is accepted, then Mr Gao contacted Mr Tullio out of nowhere regarding the recovery of money owed to him by the victims and, that as a consequence, Mr Tullio then committed these crimes. The GRV submitted that Mr Tullio's account is implausible, but if his account is accepted, it is concerning.
8. The GRV submitted that Mr Tullio has admitted that he initially lied to the police about his method of entry into the victims' property. He told the police that he walked into the property, rather than the truth, that he pried open a panel on a metal fence to gain access. Mr Tullio also admitted that he told a friend to move the stolen greyhounds into his house, as he knew the stewards would not be legally able to enter his home.
9. Counsel for Mr Tulio submitted that the greyhound industry related criminal conduct, being taking the greyhounds, making demands and Mr Tullio's dealings this the stewards regarding the two stolen dogs, was serious and isolated criminal offending. Mr Tullio admitted this criminal offending both in court and for the related disciplinary charges. Mr Tullio was found guilty without conviction on the criminal charges and he accepted his disqualification by VRT was appropriate. He has served his disqualification period. It was submitted that there is no sense that Mr Tullio believes he did nothing wrong. It was also submitted that the Tribunal might observe from Mr Tullio's texts to the victim in June 2021, that he had a misguided sense of what was right and that he disliked the victim.
10. Counsel for Mr Tullio submitted that the criminal matters were limited to events over a couple of days, for which he has received punishment, which he served without default.

Mr Tullio's behaviour to the stewards and his conduct at the racetrack

1. The second issue relied upon by the GRV was Mr Tullio's behaviour to the stewards in an interview and at the racing track and his conduct at the racing track to other racing participants. The GRV submitted that Mr Tullio has a history of acting rudely, aggressively and combatively.
2. It was submitted by GRV that on 14 September 2022, in his fit and proper person interview for the purpose of his application for registration as a trainer, Mr Tullio was 'evasive, aggressive and combative in the early stages of the interview and attempted to control the interview, however, he regained his composure and cooperated with the process'.
3. The Tribunal Book contains a transcript of the interview on 14 September 2022. It is clear from this transcript that in the interview, Mr Tullio behaved as described above. The interviewer appeared to be unmoved, calm and able to redirect Mr Tullio to the relevant matters. During the interview, Mr Tullio became far more cooperative.
4. On behalf of Mr Tullio, it was submitted in this Tribunal that he had been combative in the interview but he had quickly calmed down and this conclusion was consistent with the view of the chair of the enquiry.
5. The second incident relied upon regarding Mr Tullio acting rudely, aggressively and/or combatively, occurred at the Meadows Greyhound Racing Club on 3 December 2022. Mr Tullio was involved in a verbal and then physical altercation with another greyhound racing participant (being a registered person). The Tribunal Book contains written statements from a number of witnesses to all or part of the incident which occurred on 3 December 2022.
6. Mr Tullio gave evidence to the Tribunal that on 3 December 2022, he was standing at the fence of the track in front of the stewards' room. He heard someone verbally abusing him. He did not turn around and attempted to ignore the person. The person then grabbed him from behind and turned him around. Mr Tullio told the Tribunal that he tried to defend himself by grabbing the person. He said that the other person initiated the altercation. There were children and members of the public around who saw the incident.
7. Mr Tullio agreed that a number of other people separated him and the other person. He also agreed that after the incident he swore at the stewards. He said that he was very angry after the incident, as he had been grabbed. The witness statements in the Tribunal Book generally support Mr Tullio's version of events.
8. When asked if he would do anything differently next time, Mr Tullio said that if he received verbal abuse he would walk away. But once he was grabbed, it was a matter of physics, he could not walk away.
9. Mr Tullio gave evidence that he was invited to attend a stewards' enquiry regarding the incident which occurred on 3 December 2022. He attended the stewards' enquiry even though he did not have to. Mr Tullio stated that the person who had initiated the altercation had telephoned him the day after the incident to apologise to him. He had accepted the apology.
10. The third incident relied upon by the GRV regarding Mr Tullio acting rudely, aggressively and/or combatively was, on 16 June 2023, at the Warragul greyhound races. It was submitted that GRV's records describe Mr Tullio as being involved in a major incident on the track. He was interviewed and no action was taken against Mr Tullio.
11. Mr Tullio gave evidence that he was a witness to an incident between two racing participants on 16 June 2023. He was verbally trying to separate everyone. Mr Tullio was not physically involved. He was holding a couple of trophies at the time. Mr Tullio was asked by GRV to provide a witness statement and he did so.
12. Counsel for Mr Tullio submitted that this incident goes to Mr Tullio' credit, on the issue of whether he is a fit and proper person. He did not participate in the incident but verbally tried to get the participants to stop and then attended on and gave evidence to the stewards' enquiry. It was submitted that this reflects well on Mr Tullio.
13. The fourth incident said to show Mr Tullio acting rudely, aggressively and/or combatively was on 11 October 2023 at the Meadows Greyhound Racing Club. The GRV submitted that Mr Tullio used foul language, was loud and hostile and behaved inappropriately towards another person in a manner that was detrimental and/or prejudicial to the interests, image and/or promotion of greyhound racing. It submitted that Mr Tullio pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the stewards. He was fined $3,000, with $1,000 suspended for 24 months.
14. Mr Tullio's evidence was that he was standing at the fence of the track, when a person came from about 20 metres away verbally abusing him. They got into a verbal altercation. Mr Tullio said it was a disagreement over a dog. He accepts that he was swearing loudly and that other people could hear the altercation. Mr Tullio accepts that during the altercation, he was implying he would fight the other person. He added that he had never been in a fight in his life. Mr Tullio accepts that the other person's t-shirt was torn and that he called the other person a 'fuckin lying cunt'.
15. Mr Tullio told the Tribunal that he was not happy as the stewards insinuated that he started the argument. He was getting angry and frustrated. When Mr Tullio was asked if he would do anything differently next time, he stated that he would just walk away next time. He told the Tribunal that he has now been on medication for about three or four years to help with his stress. He no longer has a short fuse. Mr Tullio changed his medication a few times to find the right medication. He last changed medication about 12 or 18 months ago and the medication has been effective since then. Mr Tullio now takes Lexapro for his anxiety.
16. Counsel for Mr Tullio submitted that on 11 October 2023, Mr Tullio was the subject of verbal abuse by a greyhound racing participant. He yelled and swore in response. Mr Tullio's swearing was at the more extreme end and was in a public place at the track. Mr Tullio was non-registered at the time. He was charged with a non-serious offence by the stewards and received a fine. He accepts that the appropriate response would have been to walk away.

Mr Tullio's views on the export of greyhounds to China

1. The GRV was concerned about Mr Tullio's actions, views, statements, interviews and media coverage regarding the export of greyhounds and the animal welfare practices in China. The GRV submitted that it was not relying on any allegation that Mr Tullio was involved in the export of greyhounds to China, for the purpose of the assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer.
2. The GRV relied upon an article published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ('ABC') News website on 14 September 2023, which was critical of loopholes in Australian export restrictions being exploited to grow China's illegal greyhound racing sector. The GRV submitted that the article quoted Mr Tullio making comments in support of the export of greyhounds to China and being dismissive of animal welfare concerns with such a practice. It was also submitted that Mr Tullio told the ABC that he was acting as a debt collector for a Mr Gao in Australia, as Mr Gao was unable to commence VCAT proceedings and Mr Tullio disliked the person who owed Mr Gao money. The article stated that when asked if he was involved in exporting greyhounds to China, Mr Tullio responded 'I'm famous, that's good'.
3. Mr Tullio's witness statement, dated 3 June 2024, stated:[2]

I have not openly advocated export of greyhounds to China. I do not know what 'not insignificant connection' with exporting greyhounds to China is. I certainly have not been charged with any racing offences for conduct in connection with the export of greyhounds to China.

1. In cross-examination, Mr Tullio stated that the ABC article was incorrect, when it stated that he helped Chinese buyers to buy Australian greyhounds. When Mr Tullio was asked in cross-examination whether he was generally supportive of the export of greyhounds to China, he stated that his statements had been misinterpreted. He gave specific answers to specific questions from the journalist. The ABC had misrepresented him.
2. When Mr Tullio was asked whether the quote from him in the article, that greyhounds are better treated in China than in Australia was correct, he agreed he had said that. He also agreed that he understood there was concern that the greyhound industry in China was insufficiently regulated. When it was put to Mr Tullio that he had stated that the concerns about the treatment of greyhounds in China was 'all bullshit', he said that he did not like people categorising everyone as doing the wrong thing. The media reported it differently to how he said it. He said that you cannot label a whole nation of one billion people as mistreating animals. Mr Tullio stated that his view was based on the fact that he did not believe that animals sold for $700,000 to $800,000, would be mistreated.
3. When it was put to Mr Tullio that the article linked him to a loophole for the export of greyhounds, he replied that he was asked a question about the greyhound rules. He said he told the journalist that a current racing greyhound cannot be exported without a greyhound passport. Any retired dog is allowed to be exported anywhere in the world. He does not write the rules.
4. In re-examination, Mr Tullio stated that he had told the journalist that it was not against the law to send a retired greyhound overseas. It is against the rules of racing to send a racing or breeding dog overseas without a passport.
5. In his evidence in chief, Mr O'Connell stated that the export of Australian greyhounds to countries without a regulated greyhound industry, and where there was a real or perceived poor reputation for animal welfare, was detrimental to Australian greyhound racing. He stated that the export of greyhounds to China was capable of destabilising and potentially threatening greyhound racing in Australia. There had been a Senate enquiry into a bill proposing to ban greyhound racing. Victorian politicians have raised issues regarding greyhound racing. Mr O'Connell said that anti-greyhound racing activists have constantly referred to the export of greyhounds to China, as a reason to ban greyhound racing in Australia.
6. In cross-examination, Mr O'Connell agreed that GRV has no rule banning the export of greyhounds to China. The export of greyhounds is subject to the issue of a passport from Greyhounds Australasia, which he expects would not grant a passport for the export of a dog to China. Mr O'Connell stated that he was not aware of Greyhounds Australasia updating its policy from 1 August 2023.
7. In cross-examination, Mr O'Connell was taken to the comment at [21.3] of his affidavit, which reads, 'Mr Tullio has put himself into the public as a person who looks for workarounds and actively supports the export of greyhounds to China'. Mr O'Connell was asked whether this was a reference to Mr Tullio's statements reported in the article in the Australian Racing Greyhound dated 27 March 2023. The following quotes in the article from Mr Tullio were raised with Mr O'Connell:

As soon as they go to a third party, they're entitled to do whatever they want with their dogs.

And the dogs who do go overseas are retired dogs. If you read within the rules, dogs who are retired are exempt if they go overseas.

It's within the rules, so why do they sit there and say 'they're not allowed to go overseas?'

Once they're retired, you can't stop that. And that's why the government hasn't stopped it because they're like 'who the hell are we to tell people that can't send their dogs to the USA, or wherever it might be?

Until the government puts a ban on it, they (anti-greyhound activists) will always try to lobby for a ban on exports.

1. Mr O'Connell told the Tribunal the quotes extracted in the previous paragraph were partly what he was referring to at [21.3] of his affidavit. The retiring of greyhounds to non-participant status, puts them outside of GRV's jurisdiction. A registered owner can have someone export dogs as a proxy for them. Mr O'Connell said that Mr Tullio has links to the export of dogs.
2. Mr O'Connell agreed that GRV has not charged Mr Tullio with being linked to the export of greyhounds. The Tribunal notes that Counsel for the GRV, specifically excluded any allegation of Mr Tullio being involved in the export of greyhounds from the matters it was relying upon in relation to the assessment of whether Mr Tullio was a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer.
3. Counsel for Mr Tullio raised that the public position of GRV, as evidenced in its written submission to a Senate enquiry in 2023, was that it did not support a legislative prohibition on the export of greyhounds for racing, breeding and other commercial purposes. The submission also stated that there was an issue with the protection of greyhounds after they had retired from the industry, which appears to be a reference to the export of such animals being outside of the coverage of the rules of racing.
4. A document exhibited to Mr O'Connell's affidavit from the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, ©2025, refers to a loophole which allows greyhounds to be exported without a passport and refers to earlier media coverage of the export of greyhounds.
5. Counsel for Mr Tullio submitted that the applicant's submission that the articles support a finding that Mr Tullio has a reputation of finding loopholes in the rules of racing and advocates for the export of Australian Greyhounds, is not a fair reading of the material before the Tribunal. Mr Tullio commented accurately in the media regarding the status of retired greyhounds and that trainers should comply with the law. It was also submitted that at the same time, the GRV was advocating in the Senate for no legislative ban to be placed on the export of greyhounds. It was submitted that it was unfair to say Mr Tullio damaged the reputation of the profession when he identified the same issue that others have also identified. Mr Tullio and the GRV have expressed the same position regarding the continued legality of exporting greyhounds. It was submitted that the responsibility for GRV to promote greyhound racing and animal welfare, does not translate to GRV having participants in the industry tow the line on a particular issue or face consequences.
6. The GRV in its written submissions, dated 4 March 2025, concluded on this issue that:

... the Applicant's comments to the effect that animal welfare concerns about greyhounds being exported to China are 'bullshit', that he supported export of dogs to China, and that 'they get treated better over there than they do in Australia', tend to reinforce his reputation as someone who disagrees with the prevailing understanding ... that exporting of Australian greyhounds is to be discouraged.

1. The use of the term reinforce in the quotation appears to be misplaced. The only evidence before the Tribunal which the GRV has relied upon regarding this issue, are the two news articles discussed above. In the ABC News article, Mr Tullio commented as to the position under the rules of racing and law as to the export of greyhounds. He went on to defend the treatment of greyhounds in China. The New South Wales greyhound racing regulator, the Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission, is also quoted in the article that the export of retired greyhounds is not against the rules of racing. Mr Tullio's comments could be seen to be a defence and justification for the export of greyhounds to China.
2. In the Australian Racing Greyhound article, Mr Tullio appears to correctly refer to the rules of racing and the Australia law, which does not prohibit the export of retired dogs. The comments appear to be in defence of industry trainers 'being unfairly targeted by anti-greyhound activists who accuse them of knowingly sending their retired chasers overseas'. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that these comments rise to the level of finding loopholes and advocating for the export of Australian greyhounds.
3. As discussed above, this assessment of whether Mt Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer, does not involve any allegation that Mr Tullio has been involved in the export of greyhounds to China and any harm that thereby could have come to such animals. The concern of GRV is that Mr Tullio has explained in the media the mechanism, which is legal under the rules of racing and Australian law, for the export of former racing greyhounds and has defended the treatment of greyhounds in China.
4. The Tribunal was not asked to reach a conclusion that Mr Tullio had taken deliberate action to circumvent the rules of racing regarding the export of greyhounds or that he had been involved in the export of greyhounds to China. It is open to Mr Tullio to engage in discussion as to the requirements of the current rules and laws. These are aspects of political debate, which may be uncomfortable for the GRV but could not damage Mr Tullio in the assessment of whether he is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer. His comments in the articles as to the treatment of greyhounds in China, are a defence of the concept of exporting greyhounds to China. The defence being that the greyhounds are treated well and to say that they are not, is to say that a whole national of one billion people treats animals poorly.
5. Although, there was limited evidence before the Tribunal regarding the treatment of greyhounds in China, it appears that China has been designated a risk country for the export of greyhounds, as it does not have a regulated greyhound industry. It appears to be open for Mr Tullio to argue for the export of greyhounds to China by arguing that greyhounds are treated well in China. As the matter is one of public policy, it would not be appropriate to include his policy position in an assessment of whether Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer. As discussed above, if it was alleged that Mr Tullio was engaged in deliberate action to circumvent the rules of racing regarding the export of greyhounds or that he had been involved in the export of greyhounds to China, that would be a substantially different matter.

1. The Tribunal now turns to consider whether Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a greyhound trainer pursuant to LR 16.1.3. In doing so, the Tribunal will consider the specific matters to be included in that assessment as follows.

1. In summary, Counsel for Mr Tullio made the following submissions regarding Mr Tullio's criminal history and character:
   1. In June 2021, Mr Tullio wrongly sought to have another greyhound participant return money paid for a greyhound. He did this by taking and hiding, including from the stewards, two greyhounds, messaging the victim demanding money and indicating he would go the GRV. This conduct gave rise to a disqualification from greyhound racing for eight months by the VRT and criminal charges in the Magistrates' Court for which a finding of guilt without conviction was recorded. Mr Tullio pleaded guilty to the disciplinary and criminal charges, including the disciplinary charge of misconduct, for the wilful obstruction of the stewards inspecting his kennels;
   2. Mr Tullio has accepted with insight in interviews with the stewards that he is quick to anger, particularly when he perceived a slight or unfairness against him or others resulting in rudeness and verbal sparring from him;
   3. He received and served a disqualification of eight months for the conduct in June 2021 and a further 30 day suspension in 2019 for a charge of presentation of a dog with caffeine/theobromine in its system. There are no past charges of failure of supervision or care of greyhounds;
   4. Putting aside minor race day matters, Mr Tullio's disciplinary record also contains several instances of reprimands or fines for inappropriate or detrimental conduct dealt with summarily by stewards; and
   5. Mr Tullio has a history of assisting the stewards when requested to do so. He has no animus to stewards in distinction from some other cases.
2. In summary, Counsel for GRV made the following submissions regarding Mr Tullio's criminal history and character:
   1. Mr Tullio's criminal history relating to the burglary, theft and criminal damage charges is of great significance in this case. His criminal offending related directly to his involvement in greyhound racing and occurred less than four years ago. Mr Tullio showed a lack of remorse and insight for his criminal conduct, particularly by his heavy reliance on the non-conviction and his justification for his conduct. He committed these offences while on bail for other charges. While he has briefly accepted his conduct was wrong, he continues to justify and defend the offending conduct;
   2. If the evidence of Mr Tullio is accepted, then Mr Gao contacted Mr Tullio out of the nowhere regarding a dispute over the purchase of the greyhounds and as a consequence Mr Tullio then committed crimes. It is a real concern that Mr Tullio would commit crimes on the request for assistance from someone he had never met, who resides in another country;
   3. While Mr Tullio has provided generic supporting references, they do not address serious questions as to his character, including in relation to the burglary, theft and criminal damage charges, his verbal abuse of GRV staff on multiple occasions, his involvement in a physical altercation with another greyhound racing participant on 3 December 2023 and his self-described short fuse;
   4. Mr Tullio's anger management course was completed in November 2020, prior to his aggressive and combative conduct relied upon by the GRV; and
   5. In giving evidence, Mr Tullio had a tendency to minimise his conduct.
3. Mr Tullio's criminal offences and character are very significant issues in the assessment in this case. The criminal offences were of burglary, theft and criminal damages in stealing two greyhounds. Mr Tullio then engaged in making demands and threats for the payment of money to the victim for the return of the greyhounds. When the stewards arrived at his property, he instructed a friend to move the stolen greyhounds into his house, so the stewards would be unable to locate them. Mr Tullio obstructed the stewards in their duties. These matters are very serious. The criminal offences have been the subject of findings of guilt in the Magistrates' Court and the disciplinary matters were dealt with by the VRT.
4. Mr Tullio lied to the police when interviewed as to how he entered the victim's premises to steal the greyhounds. This reflects poorly on his character. The fact that Mr Tullio moved from having no previous criminal offending to engaging in burglary, theft and criminal damage, on being asked for help by text message from a stranger based overseas, reflects poorly on his character.
5. The offending conduct was largely isolated to a few days in June 2021. Mr Tullio pleaded guilty to the criminal and disciplinary charges, which goes to his credit. He does not appear to have engaged in any proven criminal conduct before or after the events of June 2021.
6. A second issue with Mr Tullio's character is his behaviour towards stewards and on race days to other greyhound racing participants. Mr Tullio has engaged in abusive and verbally threatening conduct towards the stewards. He was aggressive and combative in his fit and proper person assessment interview with the stewards and swore at the stewards after incidents with other participants at the track on race days. This conduct includes Mr Tullio in his interview with the stewards, being evasive, aggressive and combative in the early stages of the interview. Further, Mr Tullio swore at the stewards after an altercation with a racing participant at the racetrack on 3 December 2022.
7. The incidents on race days include at the Meadow Greyhound Racing Club on 3 December 2022, when Mr Tullio was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with another greyhound racing participant. The other person started the verbal altercation and grabbed Mr Tullio. Mr Tullio became very angry. The second altercation was at the Meadows Greyhound Racing Club on 11 October 2023. The other person again initiated the altercation. However, Mr Tullio used extremely bad language and was yelling so other people could hear. Mr Tullio accepts that words he stated implied that he would fight the other person. The other person's t-shirt was ripped by Mr Tullio. Mr Tullio denies that any punches were thrown.
8. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence of the incident at the Warragul greyhound races on 16 June 2023, reflect negatively on Mr Tullio. The Tribunal accepts the submission of Mr Tullio's Counsel, to the extent that Mr Tullio agreeing to provide a witness statement as to what he observed of the incident is to his credit regarding his character.
9. Mr Tullio's conduct at the interview on 14 September 2022, and at the Meadows Greyhound Racing Club on 3 December 2022 and 11 October 2023, reflect poorly on his character. As he conceded, he had a short fuse at that time and when upset or annoyed acted in a rude, aggressive and/or combative way. The conduct on 14 September 2022, showed a significant lack of judgement, in that, instead of acting in his best interests to persuade the stewards that he was a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer, his conduct confirmed that he could be rude, aggressive and combative. While it is accepted that Mr Tullio did not initiate the incidents on 3 December 2022 and 11 October 2023, it is clear that he had a major role in the escalation of these events and the damage that the incidents could do to the interests, image and promotion of greyhound racing. This conduct although limited on the evidence to three occasions, reflects poorly on his character.
10. The GRV submitted that the fact Mr Tullio was charged with domestic violence charges in about 2021, is also a factor relevant to his character. The Tribunal is not satisfied it should take this matter into account in assessing Mr Tullio's character, as the charges were withdrawn, there was no evidence that an intervention order was made against Mr Tullio and there was no evidence as to the particulars of the allegations against Mr Tullio.
11. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Tullio that he had admitted his conduct on each occasion, had engaged with the stewards even when he was not registered (and believed that he was not within the jurisdiction of the stewards) and had paid a fine which he believed was not enforceable as he was not registered at the time of the conduct.
12. It was also submitted on behalf of Mr Tullio that he had undertaken an anger management course in 2020, had commenced taking medication for anxiety and had reduced his stress by reducing the size of his plumbing business and engaged managers to run the business for him. The anger management course took place in 2020, which predates the conduct relevant to the assessment of Mr Tullio's character. The course, it appears from his subsequent conduct, was insufficient in assisting Mr Tullio to resist engaging in the conduct discussed above.
13. Mr Tullio gave evidence that for about three or four years, he had been on medication for anxiety. He had changed medications a few times to find the right one, which is common in the Tribunal's experience. Mr Tullio stated that in the last 12 to 18 months, he has found the right medication and it has been effective since then. He now takes Lexapro for his anxiety. Unfortunately, there was no medical evidence provided on behalf of Mr Tullio as to the diagnosis, symptoms, treatment and prognosis of his stress related condition.
14. Counsel for Mr Tullio relied upon the fact that there are no allegations against Mr Tullio arising from conduct after 11 October 2023. The Tribunal noted that Mr Tullio's demeanor in giving evidence in this Tribunal was significantly improved from his demeanor in his interview with the stewards on 14 September 2022, as reflected in the transcript of that interview. The observation was illuminating as both events were in formal environments, where a person may often feel some pressure. In this Tribunal, Mr Tullio was a noticeably calmer person over his hours in the witness box, than he was in the stewards interview. The Tribunal was satisfied that this behaviour in the Tribunal was genuine and not a matter of Mr Tullio straining to stay calm for the purpose of impressing the Tribunal.
15. However, the Tribunal does accept the submission of GRV that Mr Tullio in giving evidence did, on occasion, seek to minimise his previous conduct. For example, he sought to portray the threats he made after stealing the two greyhounds as statements, not threats, as he intended to carry out them out. Mr Tullio also portrayed his conduct which had been rude, angry and aggressive, and which he had previously admitted as such, as only being rude.
16. While the Tribunal accepts that Mr Tullio has displayed some insight and remorse for his previous conduct, there is evidence that such insight and remorse is not yet complete.
17. It is also relevant that Mr Tullio initially lied to the police about how entered the property when he committed the criminal offences of burglary, theft and criminal damage.
18. The Tribunal heard character evidence for Mr Tullio from three witnesses, who are each prominent in the greyhound racing industry. Each witness gave a glowing reference for Mr Tullio. In giving their oral evidence, each indicated that they were aware that Mr Tullio had been involved in one or more altercations on race days, but had not witnessed any incidents themselves, and that he had been disqualified as a trainer, but were unaware of the reasons for his disqualification. Specifically they were unaware of the conduct involving breaking into a property, stealing two greyhounds, damaging the property to gain access, making demands for money to return the greyhounds, obstructing the stewards in their duties inspecting his kennels and instructing a friend to move the stole greyhounds to his house so the stewards could not access them.
19. The witnesses were not asked if their views changed on hearing this additional information about Mr Tullio. In those circumstances, the character evidence of each witness, although genuinely given, can be allocated little weight as it does not take into account some of the most serious material about Mr Tullio. Unless otherwise referred to in these reasons, the Tribunal has given little weight to the evidence of the three character witnesses for Mr Tullio.

1. Counsel for Mr Tullio, in summary, made the following submissions in relation to Mr Tullio's reputation:
   1. Mr Tullio denied involvement in the export of greyhounds to China. The GRV relied upon two articles in the media as to Mr Tullio's reputation. The Tribunal was referred to the decision in Nikolic v Racing Victoria Limited (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 406 ('Nikolic'), where 150 newspaper articles were sought to be relied upon by the regulator to establish the reputation of the applicant. In Nikolic, the Tribunal found:
      1. Mr Gleeson submitted that one of the ways of adducing evidence as to reputation is to introduce evidence from the mainstream media. He conceded that one article would be insufficient in persuading me that it could be probative to the issue of Mr Nikolic's reputation. However, he said the reams of articles in the mainstream media that refer to Mr Nikolic went to the issue of what people think Mr Nikolic's character is; which could be informed by the many mainstream media articles.
      2. I agreed with the submissions of Mr Burnside that Mr Nikolic's reputation could not be proven in this way. Racing Victoria offered no evidence to support the unsubstantiated and unattributed gossip in the newspaper articles.
   2. The GRV written submission at [59] is the substance of the reputation matter, being that persons who disagree 'with the prevailing understanding that exporting of Australian greyhounds is to be discouraged' should be disciplined. It was submitted that GRV has not established the reputation of Mr Tullio, as it has sought to do in terms of showing that Mr Tullio is a person who looks for workarounds for the export of greyhounds to China and actively supports the export of greyhounds to China.
   3. It was submitted that the GRV does not like people disagreeing with it.
2. Counsel for GRV, in summary, made the following submissions in relation to Mr Tullio's reputation:
   1. The greyhound racing industry is frequently the subject of public concern regarding animal welfare. The Senate enquiry in October 2023, summarised key animal welfare concerns in greyhound racing, as being the export of greyhounds to countries with inadequate animal welfare regulations, insufficient traceability and registration of exported greyhounds and overbreeding and oversupply of greyhounds and its impact on rehoming efforts.
   2. The ABC article includes allegations that Mr Tullio 'is not just a debt collector but has helped Chinese buyers purchase Australian greyhounds', and that he is 'linked to another greyhound export loophole, by which dogs are retired and classified as pets before being exported'.
   3. Mr Tullio's comments '...to the effect that animal welfare concerns about greyhounds being exported to China are 'bullshit', that he supported export of dogs to China, and that 'they get treated better over there than they do in Australia', tend to reinforce his reputation as someone who disagrees with 'the prevailing understanding ... that exporting of Australian greyhounds is to be discouraged';
   4. There is an overlap between the reputation issues under the fit and proper person test and the eligibility testing in LR 18.2.4. The GRV does not rely upon any allegation of Mr Tullio being involved in the export of greyhounds from Australia in relation to the fit and proper person test under LR 16.1.3.
3. The GRV's case is that Mr Tullio has the reputation of a person who looks for workarounds to export greyhounds to China and supports the export of greyhounds to China. The only evidence relied upon by GRV in relation to Mr Tullio's reputation was two news articles which are discussed at length above. The sting of Mr Tullio's comments in those articles is that the export of greyhounds to China is not against the rules of racing or the laws of Australia and is a defence of the treatment of greyhounds in China.
4. On the basis of decision of this Tribunal in Nikolic, such evidence would be insufficient to establish the reputation of a person.
5. Further, Mr Tullio's comments as to rules of racing and the laws of Australia, appears to be correct and have also been attributed to the NSW's greyhound regulator in one of the articles and are also implied in the GRV's Senate submission, dated 15 August 2023. There was limited evidence before the Tribunal as to the treatment of greyhounds in China, save that China appears to be a risk country for the export of greyhounds and that China does not have a regulated greyhound industry to ensure the health and welfare of greyhounds. The GRV itself does not support a ban on the export of greyhounds to China, as indicated in its Senate submission.
6. Mr Tullio's statements in the news articles could be seen as engaging in a political debate about the existing and appropriate regulation of the export of greyhounds and about the evidence regarding the treatment of exported greyhounds overseas. It appears that there is some public debate about these matters. Mr Tullio should be able to engage in such debate, even if he disagrees with the GRV position and even if he is, in fact, wrong. Actions by Mr Tullio, which effect the health and welfare of animals (which is not alleged against him in this matter) would be a different issue.
7. While the greyhound industry, as indicated by Mr O'Connell, may feel somewhat under siege (to use the Tribunal's words) and believe that a united political response from the industry is best for the future viability and sustainably of the sport, the Tribunal is not satisfied that GRV has established any negative reputation of Mr Tullio for the purpose of the Tribunal's assessment of whether he is a fit and proper person to be a trainer.

1. Counsel for Mr Tullio, in summary, made the following submissions in relation to Mr Tullio's honesty and integrity:
   1. Mr Tullio has admitted when he has done wrong;
   2. He supports people and institutions when they are unpopular as indicated by his support for the Meadows Greyhound Racing Club, when they were making unpopular changes, and one of Mr Tullio's character witnesses, when she was facing allegations, which were not subsequently proven; and
   3. Mr Tullio has cooperated with stewards when requested, as either a witness or when involved in incidents.
2. Counsel for GRV, in summary, made the following submissions in relation to Mr Tullio's honesty and integrity:
   1. Mr Tullio's criminal offences in June 2021, included the dishonesty offence of theft. Further, the charges under the rules of racing to which he pleaded guilty, included wilfully obstructing and impeding stewards from conducting a kennel inspection and instructing a person to move two greyhounds from his kennels to his house;
   2. He has the tendency to minimise and attempt to justify his involvement in incidents, such as the 3 December 2023 incident; and
   3. Mr Tullio admitted to lying to the police, when he was interviewed about the burglary and theft matters, by saying that he walked into the subject property though a gate, when he had in fact pried open a metal fence to gain entry.
3. The Tribunal finds that Mr Tullio was fundamentally dishonest and lacked integrity in breaking into a property, stealing two greyhounds, damaging the property to gain access, making demands for money to return the greyhounds, obstructing the stewards in their duties inspecting his kennels and instructing a friend to move the stole greyhounds to his house, so the stewards could not access them.
4. Mr Tullio was also not honest when initially questioned by police as to how he entered the property to steal the greyhounds.
5. As discussed above, Mr Tullio had the tendency to minimise some of his admitted conduct.
6. However, Mr Tullio has admitted guilt to the criminal charges and the disciplinary matters before the stewards and the VRT. In relation to the matters which are before this Tribunal, he admitted the details of his conduct, including what would be described as its worst aspects.
7. The most serious aspects of Mr Tullio's dishonesty and lack of integrity were in a period of a few days in June 2021. Nothing of that type appears to have been repeated.

1. Counsel for Mr Tullio, in summary, made the following submissions regarding Mr Tullio's history in relation to animal welfare:
   1. The GRV has said in its written submissions that there is nothing alleged against Mr Tullio regarding animal welfare;
   2. It is unfair to suggest that a couple of media articles can impugn Mr Tullio regarding animal welfare;
   3. Regarding the treatment of greyhounds in China, Mr Tulio has said that it is important to not just assume that animals are treated badly; and
   4. On of Mr Tullio's character witnesses gave evidence that Mr Tullio cares greatly for his greyhounds and they are always immaculate.
2. Counsel for GRV, in summary, made the following submissions in relation to Mr Tullio's history in relation to animal welfare:
   1. There are no specific animal welfare concerns alleged against Mr Tullio. However, his reputation in media reporting has imputed to him a disregard for animal welfare.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied from the evidence before it that there are any animal welfare concerns in assessing whether Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer. In particular, it is noted that the GRV expressly did not rely upon any allegation that Mr Tullio was involved in the export of greyhounds to China and the health and welfare concerns such an allegation would represent.

1. As discussed above, the Tribunal has particular concern as to Mr Tullio's criminal history, character in terms of both his criminal and disciplinary history, his rude, aggressive and combative behaviour to stewards and other racing participants, and his honesty and integrity.
2. Previous criminal conduct, dishonesty and lack of integrity are key issues in making an assessment of whether a person is fit and proper to work in the greyhound racing industry. An effectively operating greyhound racing industry requires participants to act honestly and with integrity to ensure the health and welfare of the animals and to maintain the trust of the public.
3. Mr Tullio's conduct particularly in relation to the breaking into a property, stealing two greyhounds, damaging the property to gain access, making demands for money to return the greyhounds, obstructing the stewards in their duties inspecting his kennels and instructing a friend to move the stole greyhounds to his house, was not the act of a person who was fit and proper to be a trainer in the industry. Almost four years have passed since that time. Mr Tullio has experienced the consequences of this conduct both in terms of the criminal law and disciplinary action. He has displayed some insight and remorse. Nothing of that nature has been repeated.
4. His other character conduct of concern, being his rude, aggressive and combative behaviour has not been repeated since October 2023, after being exhibited on three occasions between September 2022 and October 2023.
5. There was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to justify any animal welfare concerns with Mr Tullio being registered as a trainer. Ms Thompson, another registered trainer, gave evidence that Mr Tullio's greyhounds are always immaculate when delivered to her for training.
6. On balance, on the evidence before me, taking into account all relevant matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tullio is currently a fit and proper person to be registered as a greyhound trainer.

1. The parties made submissions as to the appropriate order if Mr Tullio was successful before this Tribunal on the review. Both partes submitted that the appropriate orders would include orders under section 51(2)(d) of the VCAT Act, being the setting aside of the decision under review and a remittal of the matter to the GRV for reconsideration in accordance with directions from the Tribunal.[3] The parties disagreed as to the appropriate directions for the Tribunal to make to the GRV for its reconsideration of the matter.
2. The GRV submitted that the direction should be that in reconsidering the application for registration, the GRV should consider that Mr Tullio is eligible under LR 16.1.3, being the rule that deals with the fit and proper person assessment required for registration. It was submitted that as this was the only basis for the original decision to refuse registration and the GRV should have the opportunity to consider all other matters under the LRs, including LR 18.2.4. This rule deals with whether the registration should be refused as the registration may adversely impact the GRV's control, promotion, conduct, promotion or improvement of animal welfare, compliance or monitoring of LR, in relation to greyhound racing. This rule also provides that the registration can be refused if the person has not provided information requested by the GRV.
3. The GRV argued that it had not had the opportunity to consider these matters as the decision to reject the application for registration was made solely on the basis of whether Mr Tullio was a fit and proper person. Based on Mr O'Connell's evidence, it was argued that there was a two stage process for the assessment of applications for registration. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any legal basis for finding that the statutory registration assessment is a two stage process.
4. Counsel for Mr Tullio submitted that if the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Tullio was a fit and proper person, the matter should be remitted back to the GRV with the direction that Mr Tullio's application be reconsidered by the GRV with a direction that Mr Tullio's application not be refused pursuant to either LR 16.1.3 or 18.2.4. It was submitted that in accordance with the decision in Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission v Grech [2023] NSWSC 1603 ('Grech'), the Tribunal should determine the matters under both LR 16.1.3, being whether Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person, and under LR 18.2.4, being issues relating to the adverse impact on the GRV of Mr Tullio's registration.
5. It was argued that the relevant parts of the Greyhound Racing Act 2017 (NSW), were sufficiently analogist to LR 16.1.3 and LR 18.2.4, that the Grech decision should apply in this case. The Tribunal's attention was then drawn to [51] of the Court's reasons in Grech, as follows:

In my view, the proper application of the registration function required the Tribunal to consider the s 47(1) question, for the purpose of making a decision under s 49(1), with the residual discretion of s 49(3) available should there have been any relevant factors engaging that discretion. However, in the present case, the Commission has not demonstrated any such factors that would be relevant to s 49(3), that were not considered for s 47(1).

1. It was submitted that the Tribunal was obliged to therefore determine the matter under LR 18.2.4 as well as LR 16.1.3. Counsel for Mr Tullio conceded that the factual basis of this matter was different to the matter of Grech. The regulator in Grech as the original decision maker, had to consider the matters equivalent to those under LR 18.2.4. It was also submitted that as a matter of practical fairness the provisions should be interpreted in this way, otherwise the application for registration may not be finally determined for a number of years. The GRV, it was submitted, wanted to have another go after Mr Tullio had been found to be a fit and proper person.
2. In response, the GRV submitted that the provisions of the NSW's Greyhound Racing Act 2017 (NSW) were not the equivalent to the LRs in this case and the factual background was different to that in Grech, as the regulator in Grech had considered the matters under both sections, whereas in this case it had not done so. It was also submitted that in Grech, the regulator had not indicated there were any further matters under the equivalent of LR 18.2.4, which it proposed to consider. In the present case, the regulator has set out a number of further matters to be considered.
3. The Tribunal accepts that there is logic and fairness in favour of the considering at the same time, the overlapping matters under LR 16.1.3 and LR 18.2.4. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Grech is relevant to deciding how this matter should be dealt with. In Grech, the original decision by the regulator considered the equivalent of the matters under both LR 16.1.3 and LR 18.2.4, but the regulator at a later stage wished to have those matters considered separately by the Tribunal. That would clearly have been illogical and unfair in those circumstances.
4. In the present matter, the regulator at first instance has not considered the matters in LR 18.2.4. Further, it seems to me that as a matter of fairness to Mr Tullio, he should be allowed to further address the matters in LR 18.2.4. For example, in relation to the request by the GRV for Mr Tullio to provide the PIN number for the mobile phone taken by the Stewards on 6 June 2021, it was indicated that Mr Tullio may be willing to comply with the request. It is noted that GRV, indicated that it was not relying on this matter for the purpose of LR 16.1.3, but would do so in relation to LR 18.2.4. The Tribunal makes no finding at this point as to whether Mr Tullio has engaged in a continuing refusal to provide his PIN number to the GRV. If the Tribunal was to make such a finding it could be a serious matter under LR 18.2.4. Therefore, in fairness to both parties, it is appropriate that the Tribunal not decide the matters relevant to LR 18.2.4 and that they be decided on remittal to GRV.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that in the present circumstances, the preferrable approach is to remit the matter back to the GRV to reconsider the remaining issues, including the issues under LR 18.2.4. Although it would have been preferable to decide the matters under LR 16.1.3 and LR 18.2.4 at the same time, as they are overlapping, it is not possible in this case due to the way the matter came before the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal will therefore set aside the decision under review and remit the matter back to the GRV for reconsideration with a direction that Mr Tullio is a fit and proper person to be registered as a trainer under LR 16.1.3 and Mr Tullio's application not be refused pursuant to LR 16.1.3.

[1] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 at [36].

[3] Mr Tullio's written submissions sought orders that the decision under review be substituted for a decision that Mr Tullio's applicant for registration be granted and in the alternative that the matter be remitted back to the GRV for reconsideration with the direction that Mr Tullio's application not be refused under either LR 16.1.3 or LR 18.2.4. In oral submissions, it was conceded that the Tribunal was not in a position to grant Mr Tullio registration under the LRs.