Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2019] QCAT 107

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 107

PARTIES:

BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR033-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2018

AMENDED ON:

18 April 2019

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2018; 23 March 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hanger AM QC

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against the decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is dismissed.

2. The appeal against the penalty imposed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is allowed and ~~the respondent~~ Benjamin Mark Currie is to pay a fine of $5,000.

CATCHWORDS:

GAMING AND LIQUOR – RACING – RACING COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS – OTHER MATTERS – where review against decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that respondent breached Australian Rule of Racing 178 – where post race urine sample taken from the horse was found upon analysis to contain methamphetamine – whether the methamphetamine got into the horse’s urine sample by going through the gastrointestinal tract of the horse or whether it got into the urine sample by virtue of some environmental contamination at the time that the sample was taken

Edmondson v Queensland All Codes Racing IndustryBoard [2016] QCAT 70
Hudson v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 8
Wallace v Queensland Racing (2007) QDC 168
Webb v Racing Queensland (2011) QCAT 44

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Murdoch QC, instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett

Respondent:

J Ford, instructed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission.
QCAT is given jurisdiction to externally review decisions by the respondent by section 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). In carrying out its function the Tribunal must hear and decide the matter by way of a fresh hearing on the merits of the case and stands in the shoes of the original decision maker.
The mare PARTY TILL DAWN trained by the applicant raced at Toowoomba on

16 July 2016. She won.
Mr Currie was later charged with breaching Australian Rule of Racing (AR) 178 which reads:
a. when any horse that has been brought to a race course for the purpose of engaging in a race and a prohibited substance is detected in any sample taken from it prior to or following its running in any race, the trainer and any other person who was in charge of such horse at any relevant time may be penalised.
The particulars of the charge were:
that as the trainer, Mr Currie brought that mare to race into Toowoomba on 16 July when a post race urine sample taken from the mare was found upon analysis to contain methamphetamine.
It is accepted by the applicant that methamphetamine is a prohibited substance for the purposes of AR 178.
Ms Robyn Burchmann is a Sample collection officer. Her job involves collecting urine samples from horses on race day and she has been trained in that…

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: [2019] QCAT 107
Decision Date: 29 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is an appeal against the decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) that the respondent, Benjamin Mark Currie, breached Australian Rule of Racing 178. The breach occurred when a post-race urine sample taken from Currie's horse was found to contain methamphetamine. The dispute was brought to the court for review, with Currie arguing that the presence of the drug in the horse’s urine sample was due to environmental contamination rather than the drug entering the horse's system. The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the methamphetamine found in the horse’s urine sample was a result of contamination or if it was due to the drug entering the horse’s system.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the possible routes of contamination and the measures taken to prevent such contamination. The court also considered the expert evidence provided by both parties and the procedures followed by QRIC in collecting and testing the urine sample. In its reasoning, the court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that contamination was the cause of the presence of methamphetamine in the horse’s urine sample. The court was satisfied that the QRIC had followed proper procedures and that the presence of the drug was due to it entering the horse’s system.

As a result of its findings, the court dismissed the appeal against the QRIC’s decision that Currie had breached the racing rule. However, the court allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed by QRIC, reducing the penalty from a suspension to a fine of $5,000. The court ordered that Currie was to pay this fine as part of the resolution of the appeal. This outcome reflects the court's view that while the breach was established, the severity of the original penalty imposed was disproportionate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against the decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is dismissed.

2. The appeal against the penalty imposed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is allowed and the respondent Benjamin Mark Currie is to pay a fine of $5,000.

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:	Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 107
PARTIES:	BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR033-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	29 May 2018
AMENDED ON:	18 April 2019
HEARING DATE:	22 March 2018; 23 March 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hanger AM QC
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against the decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is dismissed. 2. The appeal against the penalty imposed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is allowed and ~~the respondent~~ Benjamin Mark Currie is to pay a fine of $5,000.
CATCHWORDS:	GAMING AND LIQUOR – RACING – RACING COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS – OTHER MATTERS – where review against decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that respondent breached Australian Rule of Racing 178 – where post race urine sample taken from the horse was found upon analysis to contain methamphetamine – whether the methamphetamine got into the horse’s urine sample by going through the gastrointestinal tract of the horse or whether it got into the urine sample by virtue of some environmental contamination at the time that the sample was taken Edmondson v Queensland All Codes Racing IndustryBoard [2016] QCAT 70 Hudson v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 8 Wallace v Queensland Racing (2007) QDC 168 Webb v Racing Queensland (2011) QCAT 44
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	J Murdoch QC, instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett
Respondent:	J Ford, instructed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission