VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	vcat reference No. Z240/2024
	
CATCHWORDS	
Review and Regulation List – Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Act 1985 (Vic) – review of decision by Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Board to cancel applicant’s promoter licence – whether applicant a fit and proper person to hold licence – whether contrary to public interest for applicant to hold a licence – applicant and  husband charged with serious criminal offences – charges against applicant withdrawn but husband pleaded guilty and was imprisoned – weight to be given to advice of Chief Commissioner of Police – relevance of applicant’s business association with husband and potential for his influence in the business – findings in relation to business association – findings in relation to applicant’s knowledge and approval of her husband’s criminal activity despite the withdrawal of charges against her – standard of proof – cancellation affirmed.  	

APPLICANT	Mendie Bunjaku	
RESPONDENT	Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Board 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	J. Billings, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	13 November 2024	
DATE OF ORDER (WITH ORAL REASONS)	13 November 2024	
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS	23 December 2024	
CITATION	Bunjaku v Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Board (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1205	

Order

1	The application is amended to substitute for the named respondent ‘Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Board’.
2	The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

J. Billings
Senior Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For the Applicant 	In person 	
For the Respondent	Mr B Coxon of counsel 	

WRITTEN REASONS (REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL REASONS)
1	This is the application by Ms Mendie Bunjaku under section 16(1)(c) of the Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Act 1985 (Vic) (Act) to review a decision by the Professional Boxing and Combat Sports Board (Board) made on the 19 March 2024 under section 9AC(1)(c) of the Act to cancel her promoter licence. 
2	There was a hearing before me today (13 November 2024) in which Ms Bunjaku appeared as a self-represented applicant and Mr Coxon appeared as counsel on behalf of the Board.
3	Ms Bunjaku was first granted a licence by the Board in 2018.  The licence was renewed in November 2021, valid for three years.  If not cancelled, it would have expired in early November 2024. 
4	Ms Bunjaku believes that she has been the only female (licensed) promoter ever. 
5	I note from the outset that there is no evidence that Ms Bunjaku has any criminal convictions. 
6	The Board made its decision after holding an inquiry that was evidently prompted by it receiving information that Ms Bunjaku had been charged with drug and other offences.  Police withdrew the charges against her, but her husband (Atdhe Bunjaku, who had also been charged with the same or similar offences) pleaded guilty and was given a sentence by a Judge of the County Court that included a term of imprisonment which he has served.  I say more about that later.  
7	Ms Bunjaku says in her submissions that she was ‘proved innocent’.  I make the observation that the withdrawal of charges by the police is not the same thing as being ‘proved innocent’.
8	The Board’s decision was made after an inquiry held under section 9AB of the Act to determine Ms Bunjaku’s suitability.  The Board received advice from the Chief Commissioner of Police in February 2024 that she is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that it is contrary to the public interest for her to hold a licence.  The Chief Commissioner’s delegate’s letter referred to, among other things, her association with ‘undesirable persons possessing criminal histories’ and ‘[c]oncerns regarding the level of influence these associations may exert over [her] in her dealings as a boxing promoter’.  (That might have said ‘combat sports promoter’).
9	I noted during the hearing the use of the word ‘persons’ (plural) but I also note that Ms Bunjaku claims in effect that the Chief Commissioner’s advice could have been only referring to her husband.  (I mention that the Chief Commissioner confirmed in June 2024 that the opinion about Ms Bunjaku’s suitability to hold a licence had not changed and was ‘ongoing’).   
10	As an aside, I say that it has been confirmed on behalf of the Chief Commissioner that the advice was not based on any ‘protected information’ and, at least by implication, that ‘protected information’ was not given to the Board.
11	VCAT has review powers under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act), especially section 51.  VCAT stands in the shoes of the Board and seeks to make the correct or preferable decision.  The review by VCAT is conducted on the basis of the whole of the evidence whether or not that was available to the Board at the time the Board made its decision. 
12	The essential grounds for the Board’s decision were that Ms Bunjaku is not a fit and proper person to hold a promoter licence and that it would be contrary to the public interest for her to hold a licence.
13	The reasons Ms Bunjaku gave in her application to VCAT for making the application were that she believed that she had been judged unfairly and that she had been discriminated against because of her gender.
14	In its decision, the Board expressed itself by saying it was not satisfied that Ms Bunjaku can manage a promoter licence independently of her husband who has a criminal history.  (There was more that the Board said but I refer just to that part for now).  In whatever way the Board (or, for that matter, the Chief Commissioner) may have expressed themselves, VCAT must apply the applicable test under the legislation. 
15	I said I would return to the criminal history.  I just need to say in outline that the offences to which Mr Bunjaku pleaded guilty include the cultivation of cannabis and the unauthorised possession of a trafficable quantity of firearms.  There were further offences.  The seriousness of the offences that I have mentioned is reflected in the potential sentences provided for in the relevant legislation and reflected in the actual sentence that was imposed, that sentence being 11 months’ imprisonment.  There was some prior offending I am aware of that was referred to by the sentencing judge (Judge Chambers) in her remarks and there is information about that in the Tribunal Book.  As I noted during the hearing, the considerations that the judge had in arriving at the sentence (where she referred to some mitigating factors and some good prospects for rehabilitation), while acknowledged, are separate considerations to the considerations that I must have in the present case under the legislation that I am dealing with. 
16	In outline, the submissions for the Board were, first, that Ms Bunjaku has not demonstrated that she can manage her promotion business independently of her husband.  But further to that, the Board relies on additional material in the Tribunal Book (produced by Victoria Police) and submits that Ms Bunjaku must have known about her husband’s cultivation of cannabis.  There were further submissions relating to the involvement of the Echo Taskforce that I will return to.
17	For her part, Ms Bunjaku made submissions for the Board and to VCAT on various dates and she made oral submissions today.  She has made submissions to the effect that there is no longer any relevant business association that she has with her husband.  She submits in particular, first, that she successfully ran her business during the time her husband was in prison.  Secondly, she submits that since her licence was cancelled, Mr Bunjaku has gone to fight in other promoters’ shows as the ‘main event fight’ and has appeared on their social media and so forth.
18	Before continuing, I interpose this observation.  Ms Bunjaku made the submission that the Board essentially discriminated against her and made its decision on the basis of her gender.  I do not see that the Board did that.  The question is what VCAT does today, but I make the comment that the issues in this case are not a matter of sex or gender but of association, which there could be whether the licence holder was male or female and whatever the sex or gender of the licence holder’s partner. 
19	In summary, the evidence is that contained in the Tribunal Book.  That has been added to by a supplementary affidavit by Ms Anastasia Ryan that was filed with leave of the Tribunal given today.  There are witness statements that Ms Bunjaku has made that are in the Tribunal Book and relevant emails from her that include submissions that she made prior to today. 
20	There was much discussion this morning about the material in the police brief which is in the Tribunal Book.  For reasons I gave this morning which I will not reiterate now, I ruled I that the material should be received into evidence.  The material included a police video which was played during the course of the hearing.
21	I note especially that the Tribunal Book includes some character references for Ms Bunjaku and one of the referees (Mr. Lim Jeka) gave evidence today.  Ms Bunjaku herself elected not to give oral evidence, so she did not give evidence on oath or on affirmation and she was not cross-examined.
22	The main questions for VCAT are these: is Ms Bunjaku a fit and proper person to hold a licence; and is it contrary to the public interest for her to hold a licence?
23	I turn now to the legislation, and the main authorities.  The Act read as a whole, the Second Reading speech, and the numerous authorities cited on behalf of the Board, enable me to determine the meaning of ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘public interest’ and relationship between those two requirements in the Act.
24	The purpose of the Act (set out in section 3) is:
(a)	to control professional boxing and professional combat sports; and
(b)	to reduce the risk of malpractice; and
(c)	to promote safety; and
(d)	to uphold industry integrity by ensuring that—
(i)	a licence holder is a fit and proper person to hold a licence; and
(ii)	it is not contrary to the public interest for a person to hold a licence.
25	Those tests are to be found throughout the Act relevant to whether the Board grants a licence or renews a licence and to when the Board, as it did in the present case, decides to hold an inquiry to determine the continued suitability of a person to hold a licence.
26	The relevant Second Reading speech indicates what Parliament’s intention was in inserting these requirements in the legislation.  They are set out at length in the Board’s submissions but I will just note part of what appears there.  The relevant Minister said that:
As with all sports, the Victorian Government wants professional boxing and combat sports to be run by people of good character and reputation.  This is an important to not only to ensure that community expectations are met, but also to uphold safety while reducing the risk of malpractice ...
[The Bill to insert these requirements has] the objective of upholding the integrity of the professional boxing and combat sports industry …
27	The Minister later said:
In practice, the Board will give regard to available information relating to a person’s character, honesty, probity and reputation which may include financial matters as well as criminal activity.
28	There are regulations made under the Act that deal among other things with promoters’ licences. 
29	The Act empowers the Board to make rules for the proper conduct of professional contests.  I was taken by Mr Coxon to the Professional Kickboxing rules - Rules for the conduct of professional kickboxing contests in Victoria (Rules).  The Rules include a Code of Conduct (Code).  The Code includes that licence holders are expected to exhibit exemplar (or model) standards at all times and not to engage in conduct that is detrimental to the reputation or interests of the boxing and combat sports industry.
30	The Act also empowers the Board to impose conditions on licences.  I was taken to the Board’s relevant document: Licensed Promoters - Duties and conditions of promoter licences and conditions of promotion permits.  This document includes that promoters will comply with the Board’s rules for the conduct of professional contests in Victoria as applicable. 
31	The Act itself includes provisions regarding the duties of promoters as set out in the Board’s submissions.
32	There were numerous authorities cited on behalf of the Board, being decisions by courts and tribunals that are relevant to my consideration.  Those cases were cited primarily as to the meaning of the expressions ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘public interest’.  I will not go through them all but there was a very thorough survey of the authorities by Mr Coxon in his submissions.  In a range of broadly comparable contexts, the authorities include the well-known decision of the High Court of Australia in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 (Bond); a number of Victorian decisions; and a New South Wales decision that I will come to soon. 
33	I will just highlight one of the Victorian decisions.  That was the decision in Siguenza v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure [2002] VSC 46 (Siguenza).  Among other things, in that case, Balmford J in the Supreme Court of Victoria said that the ‘fit and proper person’ test includes inquiring whether the person:
… is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails. 
34	What that shows is that the test is tied back to what the licence is for and what the licence would permit the licence holder to do.  Her Honour went on to say:  
It is clear from the authorities that the test … must depend, in each case, on the purpose of the legislation …
35	There were some New South Wales cases cited as well.  Of them, Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales v Fisher [2022] NSWCATAP 387 (Fisher) is the most important.  Why Fisher is so important is because it is a case concerning similar legislation in New South Wales to the Victorian legislation that regulates this industry.  It is a decision by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the New South Wales equivalent of VCAT.
36	The relevant parts of the decision in Fisher are usefully extracted in the Board’s submissions.  Mr Coxon in oral submissions took me to the key parts of the decision.  But the key thing to note now is that a relevant factor is the objective of maintaining public confidence in the industry.
37	It may be put to one side, but it is an important point to make that Fisher, consistent with other cases, makes it clear that whether or not a person (a licence holder) would receive a personal benefit from being registered (a financial benefit) is an irrelevant consideration to whether that person is a fit and proper person.  I talk about that here because I am mindful of what Ms Bunjaku has said about the financial impact of loss of licence.  But the Law really says that that is irrelevant when it comes to the question whether a licence holder, or an applicant for a licence, is a fit and proper person.
38	Continuing my discussion of Fisher, I note that NCAT identified a number of relevant factors that I agree are relevant for the present case.  It is not a complete list or an exhaustive list but it includes factors of honesty and integrity in complying with relevant laws and rules of the combat sport in question; whether the general community or public can have had confidence that the licence holder has the relevant degree of honesty and integrity; and whether registration of the applicant would bring the industry as a whole into disrepute or would otherwise be incompatible with the general objects of the legislation. 
39	Whether Ms Bunjaku is a fit and proper person is one aspect in this case.  The other aspect is what is in the public interest and there were authorities cited to me in relation to that as well.  I will not refer to the authorities in detail, save to say that the notion of public interest is broad.  It involves a discretionary judgement to be made by reference to undefined factual matters that are confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute in question.  I have talked about the statute.  That is, I have talked about the Act and what its purposes are.  When I consider the public interest, I must tie it back to that.  I have mentioned the Second Reading speech which casts some light, or some further light, on that. 
40	There is an important point to make—that, as the authorities demonstrate, the ‘public interest’ test and the ‘fit and proper person’ test overlap.  But they do not overlap entirely.  There is scope for them to have a degree of distinct operation.
41	In Mr Coxon’s submissions there is a helpful summary of the relevant authorities.  
42	I am rephrasing it, and I am leaving part of it out to make the point.  But I should have regard to what an applicant’s conduct, if established, indicates as to the ability of the applicant to engage in the industry in accordance with its rules, which rules involve issues of harm minimisation, health and safety of participants and honesty and integrity.  Secondly, I should have regard to whether the general community or public can have confidence that the person will have those attributes.  And further to that, I should have regard to whether registration of the applicant would bring the industry as a whole into disrepute or would otherwise be incompatible with the objects of the legislation. 
43	Very briefly now, I will say something about the standard of proof.  I have to have regard to the whole of the evidence.  There was discussion this morning about the requirement on the Board, when considering whether to grant a licence, to give special consideration to what the advice from the Chief Commissioner of Police is.  Parliament has not spelled that out in clear terms as a requirement when considering licence cancellation. Nevertheless, it is appropriate, in my view, that proper weight be given to the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Police.  That does not mean that the Tribunal necessarily accepts wholly or in part what the Chief Commissioner has to say.  But proper weight should be given to the Chief Commissioner’s advice. 
44	The test really—to make short of what could be a long passage of these reasons—is whether I am comfortably satisfied in relation to the matters that I need to make findings about.
45	The key matter that I am talking about here relates to the Board’s submission that Ms Bunjaku must have had knowledge about Mr Bunjaku’s cultivation of cannabis.  The Board has made this submission using the further words ‘at least’.  The Board did not go on to say that Ms Bunjaku must have had knowledge also of the firearms matters so I have not looked at that question.  I have limited my view of the evidence to the question of her knowledge about the cultivation of cannabis. 
46	So, with all that said somewhat by way of preamble, I turn to consider the evidence and the submissions.  I will deal with the main issues. 
47	Whether or not it is said to be a matter of whether Ms Bunjaku is a fit and proper person or whether, on the other hand, it is said to be a matter of the public interest, I accept the submission that the professional association between Ms Bunjaku and her husband has been firmly established over time (‘entrenched’ was Mr Coxon’s word).  The means that even if the professional association may have evolved in more recent times (and especially after Mr Bunjaku was released from prison), in the public mind there is or would be that association.  I note here that, among other things, Mr Coxon highlighted what Judge Chambers said in her sentencing remarks (there being an agreed basis on which Mr Bunjaku was to be sentenced).  Her Honour said that through Ms Bunjaku’s business, Mr Bunjaku organised and promoted professional kickboxing tournaments, some of which he performed in.
48	There is quite a deal of other evidence in relation to this point.  In the interests of brevity, I am going to refer to only some of it, and I won’t do so fully.  There is acknowledged evidence of Mr Bunjaku’s role in obtaining sponsorship, his match-making role, and other matters that Ms Bunjaku referred to in an email she sent the Board on 21 March 2024.  There is also Mr Bunjaku’s appearance on the ‘Prince Promotions’ social media pages.  There is the commonality of the names ‘Prince Promotions’ and the names under which Mr Bunjaku has fought on occasions.  So, there is a history of the intertwining of roles and involvement in the promotion business.  There was also evidence in the Tribunal Book specifically drawn to my attention, showing Mr Bunjaku’s appearance on Ms Bunjaku’s advertising for an event, even when he was not on the fight card.  There was special attention given to the proposed event for April 2024.  
49	My conclusion is that the public would be likely to associate Mr Bunjaku with Ms Bunjaku’s business as a promoter.  And I note here that it is recorded in the primary decision that during the inquiry Ms Bunjaku conceded to the Board essentially that point. 
50	I will say something about Mr Jeka’s evidence later. 
51	I will turn now to the evidence in relation to Ms Bunjaku’s knowledge about the cultivation of cannabis at the [relevant address in Altona] (Altona address).  Once again, I am referring only to the main points here. 
52	Ms Bunjaku said today words to the effect of that she had ‘a small amount of knowledge’ of her husband’s activities and that was all.  Expressly or impliedly, she was saying that she did not know what the quantity of cultivation was or what the number of plants were.  For reasons that I will come to, I consider that to be disingenuous, and that really bears on the ‘fit and proper person’ test which involves, as I have described, questions of honesty and integrity.  At one point Ms Bunjaku even said that she did not know what cannabis was (at the time).  In my view, this too was disingenuous.  Ms Bunjaku is aged in her late thirties.  It is clear that the English language is no problem whatsoever for her.  She clearly is an intelligent person with at least a reasonably high level of education.  So that also bears on the question whether she is a fit and proper person.  I do not find it credible that she had no knowledge or very limited knowledge of her husband’s activities in the cultivation of cannabis. 
53	What Ms Bunjaku has said about this matter is that at the time the police executed a search warrant (which was actually in relation to a separate investigation), she and her children were living with her mother and that they were not residing at the Altona address (where Mr Bunjaku was staying and the search warrant was executed).  In her sentencing remarks, Judge Chambers accepted Ms Bunjaku’s evidence that she and her children were not living permanently at the property at this time.  But all of the signs in the (police) photographs and video indicate to my comfortable satisfaction that Ms Bunjaku and the children were residing there for at least some of the time.  It is significant (drawing now on the evidence in the police brief) that Ms Bunjaku and her children, her cousin and her mother were all present when the police arrived to execute the warrant. 
54	There is further relevant evidence that is summarised in the submissions.  I will not recite all of it now.  It is cross-referenced to the material in the Tribunal Book which I have had available to me and have seen.  It includes what police said about the strong smell of cannabis at the property and the nature of the hydroponic set-up (which was evident in the photos and the video); and the significant fact highlighted by Mr Coxon that the basement of the property was only accessible off the main living area and that the basement door was open at the relevant time.  There are further matters, such as the reference in the police brief to the slip-on shoes (that were said to be Ms Bunjaku’s size) that were found (and shown in the video to be) at the bottom of the stairs to the basement where the hydroponic set-up was in place. 
55	There is further evidence still that can be gleaned from Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) records about Ms Bunjaku’s stated address at material times (being the Altona address)—at least so far as ASIC was concerned. 
56	As I have said, that is not the whole of the evidence.  These are just some of the key points that lead me to be comfortably satisfied that Ms Bunjaku had relevant knowledge of her husband’s activities.  It can be inferred from the evidence that if there was not complicity on her part, there was tacit approval for her husband’s activities. 
57	I now mention the Echo Taskforce.  There are references in the Board’s submissions to the Echo Taskforce and the possible (family) links with organised crime.  It is clear from charge sheets themselves, quite apart from the other material in the police brief, that Echo Taskforce officers were involved.  And Mr Coxon made a point about what appears in the search warrant, in particular as to the purpose of the execution of the search warrant, which suggests at least the possibility of some connection with organised crime.
58	In relation to this issue, I would say simply that those matters do raise additional concerns, but it is not necessary for me to base my decision in this case on drawing particular inferences from those matters.
59	To try to explain aspects of my decision further, I make some general points now, particularly about the question about whether it has been established that Ms Bunjaku is able to manage her promotion business independently of her husband. 
60	I am mindful that Ms Bunjaku maintains that she can do that and, indeed, that she has done that.  Mr Jeka gave evidence about what took place in mid-2023 when he and Ms Bunjaku staged an event.  He said in effect that Ms Bunjaku was assisting him and that fighters from both of their gyms were involved in the event.  I do not really see that Mr Jeka’s evidence takes the matter further.  The question is not merely whether Ms Bunjaku would have the capacity to manage a promotion independently of her husband.  The question is more about her husband’s actual or potential influence in the business.  But perhaps even more importantly, the question is of public perception and public confidence, therefore, in the reputation of the combat sports industry.
61	If Ms Bunjaku is unable to manage her promotion business independently of Mr Bunjaku, then it would be contrary to the public interest, in my view, for her to hold a licence.  But even if she could manage the business independently, it may still be contrary to the public interest because of the negative impact on public confidence that I have referred to.  But separately to that, there is still the question as to whether Ms Bunjaku is a fit and proper person to hold a promoter licence.  
62	There is no reason to consider that in 2018, when Ms Bunjaku was first granted a licence, she was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence (or that it would have been contrary to the public interest for her to hold a licence).  There is no reason to consider that when the licence was renewed in 2021, she was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence (or that it would have been contrary to the public interest for her to).  But things changed, and the Board held its inquiry and obtained the advice of the Chief Commissioner.  That led to the outcome of the Board cancelling the licence. 
63	In exercising merits review, VCAT takes a fresh look at the matter; stands in the Board’s shoes; looks at the whole of the evidence, whether that was available to the Board or not; and seeks to arrive at the correct or preferable decision. 
64	For the reasons that I have given, I conclude that Ms Bunjaku is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.  Further, I conclude that it is not in the public interest for her to hold a licence.  I therefore affirm the decision by the Board that is under review. 
65	I have not used the language of ‘findings’ but, to make it clear, when I speak about my conclusions about Ms Bunjaku’s knowledge about relevant matters (for instance), they are findings that I make on the basis of the evidence that I have referred to. 

J. Billings
Senior Member