Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board - [2020] QCATA 115

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2020] QCATA 115

PARTIES: RONALD DOUGLAS BALL

(applicant/appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND ALL CODES RACING INDUSTRY BOARD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL104-17

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR039-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2020

HEARING DATE:
20 November 2017

(with further supplementary submissions filed on 24 April and 16 May 2018)

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President
Senior Member Howard

ORDERS:
1. The appellant has leave to amend the application for leave to appeal or appeal in accordance with paragraph 9 of the appellant’s outline of argument filed on 25 July 2017.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where, in determining whether the appellant had used live baiting of animals for a purpose connected with greyhound racing that was improper in breach of the Greyhound Australasia Rules, the learned member at first instance was required to be satisfied that the appellant was present at a particular training facility on a particular day – where the learned member concluded that she was reasonably satisfied that the appellant was present at the training facility on the relevant day – where the evidence tendered at the final hearing below included video evidence allegedly showing the appellant at the facility while his dogs were live baited, the transcript of a stewards’ inquiry, and the transcript of an appeal hearing before the Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board – where the appeal hearing transcript recorded a steward giving evidence under cross-examination identifying the appellant as the person in the video footage – where that transcript was not previously challenged at a preliminary hearing on the admissibility of certain evidence – where the appellant now argues that the steward’s evidence was inadmissible and that the learned member misapplied the applicable test with respect to identification evidence generally – whether the learned member erred in admitting the steward’s identification evidence – whether the learned member erred in her treatment of the evidence as part of the material to be considered

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE – where the learned member determined a number of evidentiary issues at a preliminary hearing – where certain audio recorded on video footage was deemed inadmissible, but the video footage and the transcript of a steward’s inquiry were otherwise admissible – where that preliminary decision was not appealed – where the appellant now argues that the learned member should have exercised her discretion to not admit the transcript of inquiry or video footage into evidence – where the appellant argues in the alternative that the learned member should have given the transcript and video footage very little weight – whether the learned member erred in admitting the transcript and video footage – whether the…

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 Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board 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: [2020] QCATA 115
Decision Date: 1 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board involved the appellant, who was accused of using live baiting of animals for greyhound racing, an offence under the Greyhound Australasia Rules. The Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board conducted an inquiry and found the appellant guilty based on various pieces of evidence, including video footage, a stewards’ inquiry transcript, and an appeal hearing transcript before the Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board. The appellant contested the findings and appealed to the court, arguing that the evidence was improperly admitted and the findings were flawed.

The court was required to decide whether the learned member at first instance erred in admitting the identification evidence of the steward, whether the learned member erred in her treatment and assessment of the evidence, and whether the learned member reached an impermissible conclusion by not considering the appellant’s failure to provide evidence of someone else training his dogs.

The court found that the learned member did not err in admitting the transcript of the steward’s inquiry or the video footage. The appellant had not appealed the preliminary decision deeming certain audio inadmissible, and thus, the court would not interfere with the learned member’s discretion regarding the admissibility of the evidence. The court also found that the learned member did not misapply the applicable test with respect to identification evidence and that the identification evidence was properly admitted. The court concluded that the learned member did not err in law by considering the appellant’s failure to provide evidence of someone else training his dogs, as it was a reasonable inference that the appellant was the person in the video footage.

The court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant leave to amend the application for leave to appeal or appeal in accordance with the appellant’s outline of argument filed on 25 July 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant has leave to amend the application for leave to appeal or appeal in accordance with paragraph 9 of the appellant’s outline of argument filed on 25 July 2017.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Ball v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2020] QCATA 115
PARTIES:	RONALD DOUGLAS BALL
(applicant/appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND ALL CODES RACING INDUSTRY BOARD
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL104-17
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR039-16
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	1 September 2020
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2017 (with further supplementary submissions filed on 24 April and 16 May 2018)
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President Senior Member Howard
ORDERS:	1. The appellant has leave to amend the application for leave to appeal or appeal in accordance with paragraph 9 of the appellant’s outline of argument filed on 25 July 2017. 2. The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where, in determining whether the appellant had used live baiting of animals for a purpose connected with greyhound racing that was improper in breach of the Greyhound Australasia Rules, the learned member at first instance was required to be satisfied that the appellant was present at a particular training facility on a particular day – where the learned member concluded that she was reasonably satisfied that the appellant was present at the training facility on the relevant day – where the evidence tendered at the final hearing below included video evidence allegedly showing the appellant at the facility while his dogs were live baited, the transcript of a stewards’ inquiry, and the transcript of an appeal hearing before the Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board – where the appeal hearing transcript recorded a steward giving evidence under cross-examination identifying the appellant as the person in the video footage – where that transcript was not previously challenged at a preliminary hearing on the admissibility of certain evidence – where the appellant now argues that the steward’s evidence was inadmissible and that the learned member misapplied the applicable test with respect to identification evidence generally – whether the learned member erred in admitting the steward’s identification evidence – whether the learned member erred in her treatment of the evidence as part of the material to be considered APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE – where the learned member determined a number of evidentiary issues at a preliminary hearing – where certain audio recorded on video footage was deemed inadmissible, but the video footage and the transcript of a steward’s inquiry were otherwise admissible – where that preliminary decision was not appealed – where the appellant now argues that the learned member should have exercised her discretion to not admit the transcript of inquiry or video footage into evidence – where the appellant argues in the alternative that the learned member should have given the transcript and video footage very little weight – whether the learned member erred in admitting the transcript and video footage – whether the…