Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2020] QCAT 240

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 240

PARTIES: BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR261-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2020

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:
The Tribunal orders that:

1.   The penalty imposed in respect of Shakira be set aside and no penalty be imposed.

2.   The penalty imposed in respect of Dreamscope of six (6) months’ disqualification be set aside and in lieu thereof the Applicant be fined $5,000.00;

3.   The penalty imposed in respect of Eight Over of disqualification for a period of 12 months is confirmed;

4.   The period of disqualification to commence from 15 July 2019.

CATCHWORDS:
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – where administration of prohibited substance – horse transferred from Victorian stable 14 days earlier – rational explanation – where consideration of factors related to penalty – whether appropriate penalty includes disqualification or fine

Australian Rules of Racing, r178
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Abbott v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 230
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Thomas [2016] QCATA 82

R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397
Racing Victoria Ltd v Kavanagh [2017] VSCA 334
Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018] QCAT 301
Smerdon v Racing Victoria Ltd (No 2) [2019] VCAT 2059
Stewards Report: Mark Goodwin – Red Beretta dated 25 August 2016

Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Murdoch QC instructed by O’Connor Ruddy and Garrett

Respondent:

S McLeod QC instructed by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Mr Benjamin Mark Currie is a licensed trainer with stables in Toowoomba. He was charged with and convicted of several presentation offences under rule 178 of the Australian Rules of Racing. Following an internal review on 15 July 2019, he was fined $10,000.00 and disqualified for a period of 27 months. He now seeks an external review of that decision.
The parties have agreed a joint statement of facts. I reproduce the Statement below:
1. This Joint Statement of Agreed Facts is for the purposes of OCR261-19 only.
2. On 28 January 2018, 16 September 2018 and 2 February 2019 The Applicant, Mr Benjamin Mark (“Ben”) Currie was a licensed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) as a thoroughbred trainer.
3. Ben Currie ran a thoroughbred racing business in Toowoomba under the name Currie Racing.
4. The Applicant has been a licensed trainer in the thoroughbred racing industry for over ten (10) years.
The Charges
5. The Applicant was issued 3 charges by the Respondent’s Stewards on 14 June 2019 pursuant to Australian Rules of Racing (‘ARR’) 178.
6. AR178 states:
Subject to AR178G, when any horse that has been brought to…

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 Racing Integrity 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 240
Decision Date: 2 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved the applicant, Currie, who sought review of penalties imposed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) on three horses: Shakira, Dreamscope, and Eight Over. The horses were found to have administered a prohibited substance, leading to the imposition of various penalties. Currie contested the penalties, arguing that they were inappropriate given the circumstances of the case. The matter was heard by the Tribunal which had to determine whether the penalties imposed were justified in light of the evidence and applicable principles.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the penalties imposed on the horses were appropriate, particularly in light of the fact that one of the horses had been transferred from a Victorian stable only 14 days prior to the administration of the prohibited substance. The Tribunal needed to assess whether the QRIC had a rational basis for imposing the penalties and whether the penalties were proportionate to the circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the penalties imposed were consistent with relevant regulatory frameworks and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed on Shakira and Dreamscope were not appropriate. In relation to Shakira, the Tribunal determined that the absence of a rational explanation for the penalty warranted its nullification. As for Dreamscope, the Tribunal held that while the horse did test positive, the penalty of six months' disqualification was excessive, and instead imposed a fine of $5,000. Regarding Eight Over, the Tribunal confirmed the 12-month disqualification but adjusted the commencement date to 15 July 2019, aligning with the Tribunal's interpretation of the applicable rules.

In summary, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on Shakira and ordered no penalty be imposed. It set aside the penalty imposed on Dreamscope and substituted it with a fine of $5,000. The Tribunal confirmed the 12-month disqualification for Eight Over but adjusted the start date of the disqualification period to 15 July 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The penalty imposed in respect of Shakira be set aside and no penalty be imposed.

2. The penalty imposed in respect of Dreamscope of six (6) months’ disqualification be set aside and in lieu thereof the Applicant be fined $5,000.00;

3. The penalty imposed in respect of Eight Over of disqualification for a period of 12 months is confirmed;

4. The period of disqualification to commence from 15 July 2019.

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.