Currie v Queensland Integrity Racing Commission - [2020] QCAT 305

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Currie v Queensland Integrity Racing Commission [2020] QCAT 305

PARTIES: BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND INTEGRITY RACING COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR260-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:
1.   The decision of 9 July 2019 is set aside.

2.   The applicant is guilty of three counts of causing a horse to be administered with medication on 7 April 2018 in breach of Australian Rule of Racing 178E(1).

3.   Effective from 20 May 2019 the applicant is disqualified as a trainer for a period of six months.

CATCHWORDS:
·    PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – where horses were administered with a substance orally over the tongue on race day – where the administration was caught on CCTV film – where it was not established that other horses were also administered medication on race day - where the administration was by an employee – where the trainer had allowed another person complete autonomy to care for the horses at the stables – where the trainer had failed to appropriately supervise events occurring at the stables

Racing Act 2002 (Qld) s 4(1)

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) s 3(1)

Australian Rules of Racing AR.1, AR.178E(1), AR.196

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Day v Sanders [2015] NSWCA 324
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44
Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77
Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37

Racing Victoria Ltd v Kavanagh [2017] VSCA 334

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Murdoch QC instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett

Respondent:

S McLeod QC instructed by QIRC in-house legal

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant (‘Currie’) was a licensed thoroughbred trainer carrying on business in Toowoomba under the name Currie Racing.
His father Mark Currie (‘MC’) was also a licensed trainer at the time performing work for Currie Training.
The parties have agreed on the following facts.
In March and April 2018 Currie Racing had approximately 100 horses in active training stabled at two separate locations, Clifton Park racecourse and stables with 24 stalls or boxes separated into a Red Barn and a Green Barn at Glenvale several kilometres from Clifford Park (‘Glenvale’).
Staff at Glenvale were employed by Currie Racing. Gregory Britnell (‘Britnell’) and Cameron Schwenke (‘Schwenke’) were staff members there.
On 24 March 2018 five horses at Glenvale were accepted to race that day. On 7 April 2018 seven horses at Glenvale had been accepted to race that day.
Stewards and other Queensland Integrity Racing Commission (‘QIRC’) officers entered Glenvale on 7 April 2018. Subsequently CCTV footage was seized from there.
CCTV footage bearing date 23 March 2018 (claimed by QIRC to record events occurring there on 24 March 2018) showed amongst other things MC early in the morning using a syringe to squirt paste over the tongue of a…

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 Currie v Queensland Integrity Racing Commission 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] QCAT 305
Decision Date: 4 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v Queensland Integrity Racing Commission involves the applicant, a horse trainer, contesting a decision made by the Queensland Integrity Racing Commission. The Commission found the applicant guilty of administering medication to a horse on race day in breach of Australian Rule of Racing 178E(1). The applicant sought to have the decision set aside and the penalties imposed overturned. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues for the Tribunal to decide were whether the applicant was indeed responsible for administering medication to the horse on race day, and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The applicant argued that the CCTV footage did not show the actual administration of the medication and that it was not established that other horses were administered medication on the same day. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to hold the applicant accountable and whether the penalties imposed were just and proportionate.

The Tribunal found that the CCTV footage, along with other evidence, was sufficient to establish that the applicant had caused the horse to be administered with medication on race day. The Tribunal held that the applicant had allowed another person to have complete autonomy over the care of the horses, and had failed to appropriately supervise events occurring at the stables. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and found the applicant guilty of the charges. The Tribunal also considered the penalties imposed and found that they were appropriate given the circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered that the decision of 9 July 2019 be set aside, that the applicant was guilty of the charges, and that they be disqualified as a trainer for a period of six months effective from 20 May 2019. The Tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of proper supervision and accountability in the administration of medication to horses on race day.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of 9 July 2019 is set aside.

2. The applicant is guilty of three counts of causing a horse to be administered with medication on 7 April 2018 in breach of Australian Rule of Racing 178E(1).

3. Effective from 20 May 2019 the applicant is disqualified as a trainer for a period of six months.

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.