Allen v Racing Queensland Limited - [2012] QCAT 722

CITATION:

Allen v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 722

PARTIES:	Mr Anthony Thomas Allen (Applicant)
V
Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR227-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Jeremy Gordon, Member

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Stewards’ decision is confirmed.

2. The stay is to remain until the start of the 9^th day after the date of delivery of this decision given above.

CATCHWORDS:

RACING – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY DECISION – where applicant found guilty of careless riding in the opinion of the stewards – whether finding open on the evidence – where penalty not excessive having regard to riding history.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Act 2009, ss 19, 20
Racing Act 2002
Australian Rules of Racing 137(a)
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 considered
McMullen v Queensland Racing Ltd [2012] QCAT 286 applied; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 followed

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant: Mr J E Murdoch SC

Respondent: Mr D Aurisch, on behalf of Racing Queensland

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Anthony Allen is a third year apprentice jockey.

On 24 June 2012 he rode POSEN in a 1600 metre Maiden Handicap at the Sunshine Coast Turf Club’s Corbould Park. POSEN was the winner of the race and CHIEF BRIGHT STAR was second.

After the race a protest was lodged by the rider of CHIEF BRIGHT STAR Mr Alex Hearn, who complained of interference by Mr Allen’s mount just after the start of the race.

There was a stewards’ inquiry to consider Mr Hearn’s protest. The protest was dismissed but arising from the same incident the stewards decided to charge Mr Allen with careless riding under Rule 137(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing.

The relevant part of Rule 137 reads:-
“Any rider may be penalised if, in the opinion of the Stewards,
(a) He is guilty of careless, reckless, improper, incompetent or foul riding.”
The particulars of the charge were that:-
“At the Sunshine Coast on Sunday 24 June 2012 in Race 3 as the rider of Posen, shortly after the start – just after the 1600 metres – you have permitted Posen to shift in when insufficiently clear of Chief Bright Star, which has had to be checked at that time.”

In laying the charge the stewards said:-
“We do acknowledge there is a minor shift from the inside and take that into account. We believe the major portion of this interference is caused as a result of Posen being permitted to shift in there.”
Mr Allen pleaded not guilty to the charge, but the stewards found him guilty and suspended him for a period covered by 8 meetings. This was a “reviewable decision” under Local Rule LR(AC)1, therefore Mr Allen was able to appeal against both conviction and penalty to the First Level Appeal Committee of Racing Queensland. This appeal was heard on 2 July…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen v Racing Queensland Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QCAT 722
Decision Date: 16 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allen brought an application for review against Racing Queensland Limited, challenging a disciplinary decision made by the stewards. Allen was found guilty of careless riding, and the matter came before the court to determine if the finding was open on the evidence and whether the penalty imposed was excessive, considering Allen's riding history. The court was tasked with assessing the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the stewards and the proportionality of the penalty relative to Allen's prior conduct.

The court examined the evidence provided to the stewards and concluded that the finding of careless riding was supported by the evidence. The court found that the stewards' decision was open on the evidence provided. Additionally, the court considered Allen's riding history and determined that the penalty imposed was not excessive, given the circumstances and the need to uphold standards within the racing industry. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining safety and discipline in racing, balancing the individual's rights with the collective responsibility to ensure fair and safe competition.

The court confirmed the stewards' decision, finding that the evidence adequately supported the finding of careless riding and that the penalty was appropriate. The court also ordered that the stay on the penalty would remain in place until the start of the 9th day after the decision, providing a brief window for potential further appeal or compliance with the penalty. This decision underscores the importance of thorough evidence evaluation and appropriate penalty imposition in maintaining the integrity of the racing industry.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Stewards’ decision is confirmed.

2. The stay is to remain until the start of the 9th day after the date of delivery of this decision given above.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.