No decent person could read the circumstances surrounding Raimo and Marlene Kasurinen without recognising the profound distress experienced by their family. Gambling harm is real, it can be devastating, and Mr Kasurinen's death was a tragedy.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

Mrs Kasurinen is entitled to speak about her experience, grief and concerns. Those views should be heard respectfully. But public discussion of a legal decision must distinguish between testimony, allegation, opinion and findings of fact.

Recent commentary went far beyond criticising gambling products or advocating for stronger safeguards. It alleged that the Kasurinens were "groomed and exploited" by the Hellenic Club "in cold blood", that clubs seek to "entice, enslave and exploit" members, and that responsible gambling training is merely "smoke and mirrors". These are grave allegations of deliberate and predatory conduct against a named community organisation and its employees.

People are entitled to strong opinions, but opinions are not findings of fact. ACAT made no finding that the Hellenic Club groomed the Kasurinens, deliberately facilitated addiction, intentionally exploited them or set out to cause harm. Nor did it find that club employees acted deliberately, dishonestly or in bad faith.

ACAT rejected the commission's allegations concerning the club's handling of alleged problem-gambling incidents. It found that the provisions required actual awareness by employees and a subjective appreciation that observed conduct represented signs of a gambling problem. The commission could not aggregate information across different staff, occasions and systems and retrospectively attribute that knowledge to the club. That is the difference between proving what a person knew and deciding, with hindsight, what an organisation should have known.

The tribunal reached a different conclusion on the eftpos provisions, finding that immediately successive withdrawals could be treated collectively rather than as separate transactions. That interpretation must now be applied. But it is not evidence of predatory intent and does not establish grooming, exploitation or deliberate facilitation of addiction.

Accountability must remain connected to what was found. A ruling about the........

© Canberra Times