DECISION GREYHOUND RACING NSW INQUIRY NUMBERS: EXP35 and EXP36 of 2016 PARTICIPANTS: Sam Cauchi and Patricia Cauchi (the Cauchis) PANEL MEMBER(S): Mr Adrian Anderson (Steward) DATE OF DECISION: 31 May 2018 Background information 1. This decision concerns the export of 212 greyhounds to Macau by the Cauchis without greyhound passports and certified pedigree issued by Greyhounds Australasia (GA) in breach of Rule 124(1) of the GRNSW Greyhound Racing Rules (Rules). 2. The terms of reference of this 'Inquiry into the Unauthorised Export of Greyhounds' (Inquiry) were initiated by GRNSW on 11 January 2016. The Inquiry is chaired by myself as a steward appointed under the Rules. 3. Rule 124(1) of the Rules requires that any person intending to export a greyhound from Australia to any other country (excluding New Zealand) must, prior to meeting the quarantine and inspection service requirements of the relevant country, obtain a greyhound passport and certified pedigree issued by GA. 4. GA has suspended consideration of greyhound passport applications to Macau since March 2013 following receipt of a draft "Review of Australian Greyhound Export Welfare Standards" report. On 13 June 2014, the GA Board adopted the recommendations of the final report.' This included the recommendation of "continuing the suspension of receiving and processing passports to Macau until that jurisdiction is assessed as close to fully compliant or fully compliant with GA's Required Standards for Countries Seeking to Import Australian Greyhounds." 5. This decision is part of the broader Inquiry into the unauthorised export of greyhounds predominantly to China and Macau. In 2016, GRNSW charged179 industry participants with offences relating to potential breaches of Rule 124(1) concerning export of greyhounds to Macau. Information provided by those participants to the Inquiry led to charges against Sam and Patricia Cauchi as well as Mark, Stephen and Donna Farrugia. This decision concerns the determination of the charges against Sam and Patricia Cauchi concerning greyhounds exported to Macau. The decision concerning the Farrugias (the Farrugia decision) was published on 23 October 2017. The Farrugia decision is currently the subject of an appeal (on penalty only). Investigations concerning the unauthorised export of other greyhounds are ongoing. 6. Although export of greyhounds without a passport may be contrary to Rule 124, there is no Federal government law prohibiting it. The greyhound passport scheme is not part of the export approval process undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (the Department of Agriculture). The lack of a greyhound passport does not preclude a greyhound from being exported from Australia and the Federal regulatory scheme does not take account of the animal welfare standards of the destination country. The Cauchis appear to have complied with all Department of Agriculture requirements and 1 "Review of Australian Greyhound Export Welfare Standards" published by GA in June 2014. 1
quarantine procedures in relation to the greyhound exports which are the subject of this decision. Disciplinary powers of GRNSW and its Stewards 7. Although parts of the Greyhound Racing Act 2017 (NSW) commenced on 3 July 2017, at the time of this decision, GRNSW and its Stewards still ultimately derive their statutory disciplinary authority from the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW) (the Act). 8. Section 10 of the Act sets out the powers of GRNSW and includes the power to "supervise the activities of greyhound racing clubs, persons registered by GRNSW and all other persons engaged in or associated with greyhound racing".2 9. Section 21(1) of the Act is part of Division 1 and states as follows: (1) GRNSW may, in accordance with the rules, do any of the following: (a) cancel the registration under this Act of: (i) any greyhound racing club, or (ii) any greyhound trial track, or (iii) any greyhound, or (iv) any owner, trainer or bookmaker or other person associated with greyhound racing, (b) disqualify, either permanently or temporarily, any owner, trainer or bookmaker or other person associated with greyhound racing, (c) disqualify any greyhound, either permanently or temporarily, (d) prohibit any person from participating in or associating with greyhound racing in any specified capacity, (e) prohibit any greyhound from competing in any greyhound race or trial, (f) impose fines, not exceeding 200 penalty units, on any greyhound racing club or on any owner, trainer or bookmaker or other person associated with greyhound racing for breaches of the rules, (g) suspend, for such term as GRNSW thinks fit, any right or privilege conferred by this Act or the rules on any owner, trainer or bookmaker or other person associated with greyhound racing, (h) prohibit any person registered under the rules from taking part in any greyhound racing meeting held by any greyhound racing club that is not registered under the rules. 10. Section 23 of the Act provides GRNSW may make rules with respect to the control and regulation of greyhound racing including: any of the matters referred to in Division 1;3 the appointment of stewards by GRNSW and the functions of those stewards (including functions that do not relate to greyhound racing meetings); and4 conferring on stewards appointed by GRNSW the function of enforcing the rules. 5 11. Rule 95(1) of the Rules concerns penalties and states as follows: A person found guilty of an offence pursuant to or a breach of these Rules shall, at the discretion of the Controlling Body or the Stewards be liable to any or combination of a- (a) fine not exceeding such amount as specified in the relevant Act or Rules for any one (1) offence; (b) suspension; (c) disqualification; (d) cancellation of registration; or (e) warning off as the Controlling Body or Stewards see fit. 2 S10(2)(b) of the Act 3 S23(2)(a) of the Act 4 S23(2)(j) of the Act 5 S23(2)(k) of the Act 2
12. Rule 95(3) states that any portion of the penalty imposed may be suspended for such time and pursuant to such conditions as ordered by the Controlling Body or Stewards. 13. Rule 92(4) states that: Matters to which the Controlling Body or Stewards must have regard are- (a) the character and antecedents of the person charged; (b) the nature of the breach and the circumstances in which it was committed, in particular, the seriousness of the breach and any negligence, recklessness or indifference of the person charged; (c) whether the person has denied or admitted the charge. 14. Rule 97 is titled "Cumulative Penalties" and states as follows: If a person or a greyhound- (a) is disqualified or suspended on any occasion for more than 1 period; or (b) has been previously disqualified or suspended for any period and during that period is again disqualified or suspended, any period of disqualification or suspension other than the first or any further period of disqualification or suspension is, if the Controlling Body or the Stewards so directs, to be cumulative. Summary of charges, process and findings 15. On 29 August 2016, Sam Cauchi was interviewed by investigators Paul Nahmias and Connor Dilleen at the GRNSW offices at Rhodes, NSW. 16. On 5 September 2016, Patricia Cauchi was interviewed by Paul Nahmias and Connor Dilleen at Rocky Ridge Farm, 3 Jones Rd Calga, NSW. 17. On 21 December 2016, Sam and Patricia Cauchi were each notified by letter and an accompanying brief of evidence (the Brief) that the following charges were laid against them under the Rules: a. forty-nine charges for unauthorised export of 49 greyhounds to Macau under Rule 124(1); b. thirty-five charges for failing to lodge documents required under Rule 117(2); c. thirty-five charges for failing to lodge documents required under Rule 117(1); d. forty-four charges for failing to lodge documents required under Rule 106(3); e. one charge of misconduct under Rule 86(o); f. one charge of conduct detrimental or prejudicial under Rule 86(m); g. one charge under Rule 86(n); and h. one charge under Rule 86(q) (the charges). 18. The Cauchis were given until 18 January 2017 to respond to the charges. 19. On 4 January 2017, GRNSW was contacted by the Cauchis' legal representative, Mr Michael Taylor, requesting copies of the letters containing the charges and the Brief. 20. On 5 January 2017, Mr Taylor requested an extension of time until 15 February 2017. 21. On 7 January, the Cauchis were directed to respond to the charges by no later than 1 February 2017. 22. On 2 March 2017, the Cauchis pleaded guilty to the forty-nine charges under Rule 124(1), and the one charge under Rule 86(o). These pleas were accepted and the other charges were not pursued. I granted an extension until 23 March 2017 for the Cauchis' legal representative to provide written submissions and any evidentiary material on penalty. 3
23. 0n13 April 2017, the Department of Agriculture provided evidence of the export of 210 greyhounds to Macau in the name of Patricia Cauchi in the period from 5 June 2013 10 December 2015. The Department of Agriculture provided this information only after Patricia Cauchi provided her consent for GRNSW to obtain this information. 24. The information produced by the Department of Agriculture on 13 April 2017 did not identify the individual greyhounds exported in the name of Patricia Cauchi. The Department of Agriculture provided the Inquiry with details of shipments of greyhounds to Macau, which did not list the names and registration details of the individual greyhounds included in those shipments. The information suggested that 210 greyhounds had been exported during the relevant period of time. 25. The Steward arranged a further request for information under freedom of information legislation, for specific information relating to the exports identified in the information provided by the Department of Agriculture, with the consent of the Cauchis. That information was provided to the Inquiry on 20 April 2018. On further analysis of the specific details produced by the Department of Agriculture, the Inquiry identified a total of 212 greyhounds exported to Macau in the name of Patricia Cauchi. 26. The Steward put this additional evidence to the Cauchis on 1 May 2018, and invited them to make a further admission to exporting a total of 212 greyhounds to Macau in breach of Rule 124(1) in the period 5 June 2013 to 20 December 2015. 27. In a letter dated 10 May 2018, the Cauchis admitted to exporting a total of 212 greyhounds to Macau in breach of Rule 124(1). 28. Rule 124(1) as it applied on and subsequent to 1 January 2010 states: Any person intending to export a greyhound, being the subject of these Rules or to those of a relevant Registration Controlling Body, from Australia or New Zealand to any other country (excluding Australia or New Zealand) must, prior to meeting the quarantine and inspection service requirements of the relevant country, obtain a greyhound passport and certified pedigree issued by Greyhounds Australasia. 29. Rule 86(o) as it applied through to 1 January 2016 states: A person (including an official) shall be guilty of an offence if the person has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing, which, in the opinion of the Stewards or the Controlling Body, as the case may be, is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct. Participants' submissions as to penalty and further GA correspondence 30. On 23 March 2017, the Cauchis provided written submissions in relation to their guilty pleas. This included multiple character references from other members of the greyhound racing industry. In summary they submitted: a. they have on numerous occasions assisted in charitable and other fundraising activities for the benefit of the greyhound racing industry and other organisations; b. they are well regarded in the greyhound racing industry not only for their success, but also for the support they have provided to others; c. they submitted guilty pleas at the first available opportunity with contrition and remorse; d. they fully cooperated with the investigation, providing full and frank admissions; e. they have exemplary records; f. they are persons of good standing within the Industry, considering the various character references; g. they are not sophisticated persons who set out to deliberately breach the Rules; h. they did not act with deliberate dishonesty, merely in ignorance of the Rules; and i. substantial penalties would be unfair considering their advancing ages, medical issues, and transition to retirement. 4
31. On 10 October 2017, Mr Taylor was provided with copies of previous correspondence from GA to the Cauchis or their lawyer. These included: a. Letter from GA to the Cauchis' then lawyer Paul Shead dated 25 June 2004 confirming the introduction of a rule requiring passports for greyhound exports and the enforcement of the rule from 1 July 2004. This letter responded to a fax from Mr Shead dated 21 June 2004 concerning the $200 fee for passports. b. Letter from GA to the Cauchis dated 5 July 2012 informing them of GA's formal review of its approach to greyhound exports including the establishment of animal welfare standards. In this letter, GA informed the Cauchis it would not approve two applications for greyhound exports to China unless they completed a questionnaire and GA was satisfied that animal welfare concerns were satisfactorily addressed. c. Unsigned copy of a letter from GA to the Cauchis dated 5 March 2013 confirming the decision made at GA's 1 March 2013 Board meeting to suspend the receiving and processing of greyhound passport applications where the destination country is Macau. d. Unsigned copy of a letter from GA to the Cauchis dated 2 June 2014 referring to the 5 March 2013 correspondence and informing them that an industry participant had since been found to still be exporting greyhounds to Macau and was consequently charged by stewards for breaching Rule 124(1). 32. On 26 October 2017, Mr Taylor responded submitting: a. Mr Shead did previously act for Mr Cauchi but Mr Shead never provided him with the original or a copy of the GA letter dated 25 June 2004. b. The Cauchis acknowledge receiving the 5 July 2012 correspondence from GA. c. The Cauchis deny receipt of the 5 March 2013 GA correspondence but acknowledge it was addressed to their home street address. d. The Cauchis deny receipt of the 2 June 2014 GA correspondence but accept that it was addressed to their home street address. e. The Cauchis did not dishonestly or fraudulently breach the rules to which they had pleaded guilty. 33. On 10 May 2018, following exchanges of correspondence and calls between solicitors for the Cauchis and GRNSW, the Cauchis made an admission of exporting a total of 212 greyhounds to Macau in breach of Rule 124(1) in the period 5 June 2013 to 10 December 2015. The Cauchis' solicitors submitted that the Inquiry should consider and give weight to the following matters: a. the Cauchis have fully co-operated with the Inquiry; b. the Cauchis were prepared to make admissions against their interests; c. the Cauchis fully complied with the legal requirements for the export of the greyhounds laid down by the Department of Agriculture; and d. the Cauchis have facilitated a significant saving of time and money to GRNSW that would have otherwise been required but for their co-operation and admissions concerning the 212 greyhounds. 34. The Cauchis' solicitors made similar submissions to the Inquiry in correspondence dated 23 March 2018. 35. Following exchanges of correspondence between the solicitors for the Cauchis and GRNSW, it was also confirmed that the Cauchis agreed that their admission to exporting the additional 163 greyhounds (for a total of 212 greyhounds) should be taken into account by the Inquiry for the purposes of assessing the appropriate penalty, notwithstanding the fact that no charges have been laid against the Cauchis for the export of those additional greyhounds. Consideration in relation to penalty 36. As the Racing Appeal Tribunal (NSW) has noted on several occasions, these are civil disciplinary proceedings in which it is necessary to have regard to the conduct which has been disclosed, to have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the facts themselves and those of the individual persons concerned, and then looking to the future to determine what order is required within the scope and purpose of the Rules. The scope and purpose of the Rules relevant to export offences enlivens the issues of greyhound welfare. 5
37. Sam Cauchi migrated to Australia from Malta and since his arrival in Australia has spent almost his entire working life involved in the greyhound industry. In 1963 he commenced working at a well-known and established greyhound training and trial track facility at Kellyville which was run by his cousin, Paul Cauchi. He has been registered in various capacities from public trainer, studmaster and owner since 1970. 38. Patricia Cauchi has been registered as an owner since 1 April 1973. 39. The Cauchis married in 1972 and in about 1975 purchased a property at Box Hill, NSW and developed a greyhound breeding and training complex which included a public straight trial track. 40. In 1983 the Cauchis sold the Box Hill property and purchased a property at Jones Road, CaIga on the NSW central coast. They named the property "Rocky Ridge Farm" and developed that facility into a greyhound spelling, rearing, breeding, education and training establishment. They are joint owners of Rocky Ridge. 41. The Cauchis were approached by a representative of the Yat Yuen Canidrome (Macau Canidrome) in 1994 to export greyhounds to race at Macau Canidrome. The Cauchis have been involved in the regular export of greyhounds from Australia to Macau from that time until December 2015 when Qantas and Cathay Pacific suspended their carriage of racing greyhounds into Hong Kong. 42. In 2004, the GA Board resolved to introduce a national greyhound passport rule effective from 1 July 2004. GA has provided to the Inquiry an unsigned copy of a letter to the Cauchis' then lawyer Paul Shead dated 25 June 2004 confirming the introduction of the rule requiring passports for greyhound exports and the enforcement of the rule from 1 July 2004. This letter responded to a fax from Mr Shead dated 21 June 2004 concerning the $200 fee for a passport. The Cauchis acknowledge that Mr Shead acted for Mr Cauchi at the time but say that Mr Shead never provided them with the original or a copy of the GA letter dated 25 June 2004. 43. In any event, the Cauchis subsequently became aware of the rule requiring passports for greyhound exports because they then commenced applying to GA for passports to export greyhounds to Macau. Mr Cauchi said in the 5 September 2016 interview that "they must have got in touch with us" and Mrs Cauchi could not remember how she became aware of the introduction of the rule.6 44. Between October 2006 (at the latest) and 6 March 2013 the Cauchis were filling orders from Macau Canidrome for shipments of approximately 10 dogs per month.7 The Cauchis purchased the dogs for approximately $800-$1200 and sold them for approximately $2200 - $2500. They passed on the $200 passport fee to Macau Canidrome but incurred freight costs of approximately $700. Mr Cauchi estimated the profit at "anywhere between four and six hundred" per greyhound.8 45. In May 2012, GA commenced a review into the animal welfare standards of host countries importing Australian greyhounds. By letter dated 5 July 2012 GA wrote to the Cauchis informing them of GA's formal review of its approach to greyhound exports including the establishment of animal welfare standards. In this letter, GA informed the Cauchis it would not approve their applications for greyhound passports to export two greyhounds park Country' and `Miagi') to China until they completed a questionnaire and GA was satisfied that animal welfare concerns were satisfactorily addressed. The letter stated "in determining whether any proposed export is legitimate GA needs to assess whether the act of exporting is in the best interests of greyhound racing in Australia. In making this assessment GA will consider, amongst other things, whether acceptable animal welfare standards will be met in the proposed destination country." The Cauchis admit that they received this letter. 6 5 September 2016 transcript page 47 Ibid pp 49 and 50. 8 29 August 2016 transcript, p 34. 6
46. On 1 March 2013, GA suspended consideration of greyhound passport applications to Macau following receipt of a draft "Review of Australian Greyhound Export Welfare Standards" report. 47. On 5 March 2013 GA wrote to the Cauchis confirming the decision made at GA's 1 March 2013 Board meeting to suspend the receiving and processing of greyhound passport applications where the destination country is Macau. GA has provided an unsigned copy of the letter dated 5 March 2013. The Cauchis deny receipt of the 5 March 2013 GA correspondence but acknowledge it was addressed to their home street address. 48. The last shipment of greyhounds from the Cauchis to Macau with passports took place on 6 March 2013. After 6 March 2013, the Cauchis continued to export greyhounds to Macau without passports. The Cauchis have now admitted to exporting a total of 212 greyhounds to Macau in the period 5 June 2013 to 10 December 2015. 49. Mrs Cauchi admits she spoke with someone from GA around this time and claims the GA person said "We're not issuing passports anymore".9 Ms Cauchi claimed that no one told her she couldn't keep exporting the dogs without passportsl and Mr Cauchi claimed that a representative of GA said "you don't have to have a passport anymore".11 Neither Mr Cauchi nor Mrs Cauchi could identify who at GA made these comments although Mrs Cauchi believed the person she spoke to at GA may have been "Steve". 50. By letter dated 2 June 2014 GA CEO Scott Parker wrote to the Cauchis referring to the 5 March 2013 correspondence and reiterating that the GA Board had determined that it was not in the best interests of Australasian greyhound racing for any greyhound to be exported to Macau. The 2 June 2014 letter informed them that an industry participant had since been found to still be exporting greyhounds to Macau and was consequently charged by stewards for breaching Rule 124(1). The Cauchis deny receipt of the 2 June 2014 GA correspondence but accept that it was addressed to their home street address. 51. GA's final report into animal welfare standards in overseas jurisdictions titled "Review of Australian Greyhound Export Welfare Standards", including its 12 recommendations, was adopted by the GA Board on 13 June 2014 (the Review). Amongst other things, the Review recommended continuing the suspension of passports to Macau until that jurisdiction was assessed as close to fully compliant or fully compliant with GA's Required Standards for Countries Seeking to Import Australian Greyhounds. 52. On 24 June 2014, GA issued a media release stating that the Review had been published and that the Board had accepted all 12 recommendations including maintaining GA's suspension of the issuance of passports to Macau. A copy of the media release was placed on the GA website. 53. Of the total of 212 greyhounds exported by the Cauchis to Macau without passports, 140 greyhounds were exported after the media release of 24 June 2014. 54. The export of greyhounds from Australia to Macau was the subject of the 7.30 Report television episode titled "Australian greyhounds deemed too slow exported to Macau" which aired on ABC on 9 December 2015. The program rightfully raised community concern about animal welfare issues arising in connection with the export of greyhounds to countries with inferior animal welfare laws and standards. 55. Following the 7.30 Report episode, Qantas announced on 11 December 2015 that it would no longer provide racing greyhound freight services to Asia. Cathay Pacific, the other commercial airline with direct flights to Hong Kong also confirmed that it would not transport racing greyhounds to Asia. 95 September 2016 transcript, p 22. 1!bid p46 29 August 2016 transcript, p13. 7
56. The stance of these airlines stopped the Cauchis' greyhound export business to Macau. Patricia Cauchi then burnt and destroyed the Cauchis' records of exports to Macau.12 The destroying of this evidence is indicative of consciousness of guilt. 57. I am satisfied that the Cauchis did know that the Rules prohibited the export of greyhounds to Macau without passports and nevertheless continued the exports after 6 March 2013 and after 24 June 2014 when the majority of the exports occurred. 58. These were not inadvertent nor negligent breaches of Rule 124(1). I find that these were deliberate and intentional breaches of Rule 124(1) and have taken this into account on the question of penalty. 59. I have also taken into account the seriousness and scale of the offending. Rule 124(1) itself is designed to protect the welfare of greyhounds. It is designed to prevent export of greyhounds to countries which do not meet GA's animal welfare standards. The Cauchis acknowledge that they were made aware in the 5 July 2012 GA letter that GA was reviewing its stance on exports and its concern to ensure acceptable animal welfare standards would be met in the proposed destination country. 60. The Review ultimately identified, inter alia, the following welfare concerns concerning Macau: a. track preparation and maintenance (noting that the maintenance and preparation of the race surface could improve); b. housing and kennelling (noting that many of the kennels were smaller than required under Australian codes of practice and the housing conditions, although practical and clean, are dated and worn"); c. injury rates (euthanasia rates due to serious injury were described as "alarmingly high"); d. exercise (daily exercise insufficient for optimal welfare outcomes); and e. the Greyhounds as Pets program (extremely low number of greyhounds likely to be adopted). 61. This highlights the importance and role of Rule 124(1) in protecting the welfare of greyhounds and the conditions endured by the greyhounds exported to Macau by the Cauchis.. This in turn highlights the objective seriousness of the Rule 124(1) breaches and the associated 86(o) offence. 62. As was the case in the Farrugia decision, considerations akin to general deterrence are extremely important to a penalty such as this. The message must be maintained that this sport will no longer suffer offences which jeopardise the welfare of greyhounds and tarnish the image and reputation of the sport in the eyes of the public. In particular, that the greyhound racing industry in NSW will not tolerate the unauthorised export of greyhounds to countries that do not have adequate animal welfare standards. 63. The unauthorised export of the greyhounds to Macau by the Cauchis is serious misconduct under the Rules and placed these greyhounds at risk of stress, exposure to substandard kennel conditions, substandard racing conditions, high rates of injury and euthanasia, a lack of suitable post racing arrangements, and an environment with inadequate animal welfare laws and enforcement. 64. These offences also undermine the reputation and image of the sport in the community. Conduct contrary to the welfare of greyhounds has severely damaged the reputation and image of the greyhound industry in NSW. 65. Sam Cauchi purchased the vast majority of the greyhounds and Patricia Cauchi handled all the paperwork including booking the airlines and the vets. They are joint owners of Rocky Ridge and have operated their business together. I have formed the view that the Cauchis have equal responsibility for these offences. Despite the differences in their roles, they acted together with equal culpability. 12 5 September 2016 transcript, pp 28, 6, and 55. 8
66. Patricia Cauchi has never previously been convicted of a breach of the Rules. Sam Cauchi self-reported one prior offence relating to a breach of the Rule in respect of a frozen semen sample whilst he was registered as a Studmaster over 10 years ago. 67. I have taken account of the following mitigating factors in favour of the Cauchis: 1. Their early guilty pleas. 2. The cooperation they provided to the inquiry including the admissions in their interviews of 29 August and 5 September 2016 and their admissions to the unauthorised export of a total of 212 greyhounds to Macau following receipt of the FOI material. 3. Their excellent records and lack of antecedents over the period of their extensive participation in the greyhound racing industry in NSW. 4. Their good character as attested to by extensive character references and charitable and other fundraising activities. 5. Their advanced years and health concerns. 6. The greyhounds appear to have been exported in accordance with Federal Department of Agriculture requirements with the necessary permits and vaccinations under the law. 68. I accept the Cauchis by their guilty pleas have demonstrated some contrition and remorse and so considerations akin to specific deterrence are not foremost in this case. 69. I have had regard to the Farrugia decision of 23 October 2017 and the other penalties referred to therein. I have also had regard to the decision of Racing Queensland stewards in the matter of Ian Hoggan on 30 April 2014 which was provided on behalf of the Cauchis. By way of comparison with the Farrugia decision, I note that I did not find that Stephen and Mark Farrugia's Rule 124(1) offences were deliberate and intentional, and there was no destruction of relevant documents in that case. 70. If it were not for the early guilty pleas and other mitigating factors in this case, including their subsequent admission to the export of a total of 212 greyhounds, I would have disqualified the Cauchis for a period of 5 years each for their offences under Rules 124(1) and Rule 86(o) in addition to the fines for the Rule 124(1) breaches outlined below. 71. For the offences under Rule 124(1), I disqualify each of Sam and Patricia Cauchi for a period of 3 and a half years and fine them each the sum of $22,000. I would have imposed a more substantial fine if I considered that section 21(1)(f) of the Act authorised me with sufficient clarity to impose a fine in excess of 200 penalty units. 72. For the misconduct offences, I disqualify Sam and Patricia Cauchi for a period of 3 and a half years each. The conduct underlying these charges is essentially the same conduct giving rise to the breaches of Rule 124(1) and I make these periods of disqualification wholly concurrent with the periods of disqualification imposed above. 73. The Cauchis have been notified of their appeal rights and provisions relating to payment of the fines. The periods of disqualification -outlined above commence nine days from the date of this decision. Mr Adrian Anderson Steward 9