Goldsbury v Qric - [2018] QCAT 309

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Goldsbury v QRIC [2018] QCAT 309

PARTIES:

REBECCA MARY GOLDSBURY
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR017-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 August 2018

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Dr Collier

ORDERS:

The decisions of the stewards on 13 December 2017 finding, and of Mr Kane Ashby in his Internal Review Decision dated 10 January 2018 affirming, Ms Goldsbury guilty of breaching ARR 135(b) and liable to suspension for 2 months should be set aside and the following decision made:

(a) Apprentice Rebecca Goldsbury is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing arising from Race 2 at Toowoomba Racecourse on 2 December 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – Thoroughbred Racing – Apprentice Jockey – where the applicant has been found guilty of a breach of Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing – whether charge is substantiated on review – whether rider of the horse took all reasonable and permissible measures
Australian Rules of Racing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 28(3), s 28(3)(b)

In the matter of Jockey: Damian Browne, unreported, Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board, 18 March 2014
In the matter of Licensed Jockey Chris Munce, unreported, Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales, 5 June 2003
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Grylls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 49
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
Oliver v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 50
Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy [2012] QCAT 31

Radecker, MS v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 4

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J E Murdoch QC

Respondent:

Self-represented by W Kelly

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Rebecca Goldsbury is an apprentice jockey in her fourth and final year as an apprentice. She holds a licence to race in mid-week meetings in the metropolitan area. At the date of the charge she was entitled to, and claimed, 1.5kg allowance as an apprentice.
On 2 December 2017 Ms Goldsbury rode Occhilupo, a thoroughbred racehorse, in Race 2 at Clifford Park Racecourse, Toowoomba, a Class 1 event over 1200m. Occhilupo was the top-weight in the race at 59.0kg, started second favourite at $3.60, and commenced from barrier 4.
Occhilupo is a four-year-old stallion and is, as apparent from the testimony, a reasonably large horse. It was his first race start in 27 weeks.
This ride was the first race ride by Ms Goldsbury following an earlier one-month suspension imposed on her by race stewards under the Australian Rules of Racing (ARR), ARR 135(b), the same rule under which she was charged and concerns this present appeal.
Ms Goldsbury rides in Australia under Mr Benjamin Currie, a registered trainer, as her master, having started her race-riding career in New Zealand. The issue of…

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 Goldsbury v Qric 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: [2018] QCAT 309
Decision Date: 21 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldsbury v Qric involves a dispute between Rebecca Goldsbury, an apprentice jockey, and the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC). Goldsbury was found guilty of breaching Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing, which pertains to improper riding of a horse, and subsequently faced a two-month suspension. The matter was brought before the court for review of the stewards' decision and the subsequent internal review by Mr. Kane Ashby.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the charge against Goldsbury was substantiated upon review. This involved examining whether Goldsbury had taken all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure the horse raced within its capabilities and without unnecessary interference. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties, including the testimony of Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr. Neil Boyle, who detailed Goldsbury's actions during the race and their impact on the horse's performance.

The court found that Goldsbury's actions, particularly between the 600-metre and 250-metre marks, were not merely errors of judgment but rather a failure to ride with sufficient purpose and vigour. Despite the relatively low level of culpability assessed by the stewards and the borderline nature of the charge, the court upheld the stewards' decision that Goldsbury's restraint of the horse caused it to race erratically. The court concluded that the charge was substantiated, and the decisions of the stewards and Mr. Ashby affirming Goldsbury's guilt were upheld.

Ultimately, the court determined that the findings of guilt and the subsequent two-month suspension should be set aside, and Goldsbury was found not guilty of the charge under Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decisions of the stewards on 13 December 2017 finding, and of Mr Kane Ashby in his Internal Review Decision dated 10 January 2018 affirming, Ms Goldsbury guilty of breaching ARR 135(b) and liable to suspension for 2 months should be set aside and the following decision made:

(a) Apprentice Rebecca Goldsbury is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing arising from Race 2 at Toowoomba Racecourse on 2 December 2017.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Ms Goldsbury’s Counsel also suggested the following points in Ms Goldsbury’s favour:(a)The stewards would have had no concern had Occhilupo been placed second (rather than third) and, in fact, the margin in this case was a nose – so the charge is borderline;(b)The stewards who officiated at the race meeting assessed a relatively low level of culpability on the part of Ms Goldsbury; and(c)Ms Goldsbury, originally from New Zealand, had received no training or support during the period she has been an apprentice jockey while residing and riding in Australia.The Respondent’s Evidence The Respondent’s concern with Ms Goldsbury’s ride is summarised in its final submission, in particular:[16]The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s actions in not riding with sufficient purpose or vigour, when ample opportunity existed, to improve her position at such a vital stage of the race [between 550m and 250m], was more than a mere error of judgement. The Respondent further submits the opportunity to improve her position was not a ‘split second’ decision by any means, and finds it presented for an extended period of time between the 550 metre mark and until the 250 metre mark.[16]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions dated 6 June 2018, para 40. The evidence-in-chief for the Respondent, QRIC, was given by Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Neil Boyle, who was chairman of the panel of stewards on the race day. Mr Boyle is a former jockey and horse trainer with over 30 years’ experience in the racing industry including almost six years' as a race steward. Mr Boyle is a credible witness. Mr Boyle expressed his opinion that between 600m and 250m Occhilupo was pulling his head to the right in response to Ms Goldsbury pulling on the right rein, effectively restraining the horse when there was no reason to do so. In this regard Mr Boyle’s relevant testimony is:So that – that played severely in the back of our minds that she was claiming that the horse was hanging, but the video doesn’t support the horse hanging at all. And, being an ex-jockey, I can assure you if the horse was hanging, it would have been probably out a little bit further. If you can – say – say, there, she’s probably the closest of those horses on the inside line to the rail. (Transcript, page 1.53)…She’s saying the horse is wanting to hang out. My experience as a jockey, most horses, when they’re hanging out, don’t have their head turned out; they have their head turned in. Horses that are hanging out, they’re usually wanting to lay out; and the jockey’s got the inside rein, which is this right-arm rein, turned in. So that would show me that the horse is not hanging out. If anything, it’s got a tendency to lay in. And I also noted, when I read the transcript, Mr Curry’s statement at the inquiry where he said Apprentice Goldsbury reported that the horse wanted to get in on one rein; that tells me the horse wanted to lay in. But for the majority of the inquiry here today and in her submission, Apprentice Goldsbury stated that the horse wanted to hang out. So one’s in and one’s out. So I’m yet to determine which one that is because the video doesn’t support either at this stage [this comment is relevant up to about the about 800m mark]. (Transcript, page 1.53)…We, as a panel – we – we’re of the view that the reason the horse was racing erratically or intractable, as Ms Goldsbury stated, was because of her actions with her hands. She’s got hold of the reins and when she’s – when she’s pulling the inside rein, it’s throwing its head up and, when she’s turning it the other way, it’s doing the same [this comment made at about the about 500m mark]. (Transcript, page 1.54)…Apprentice Goldsbury did say that the horse changed legs running the home turn, which we agreed it did. But we’re saying – my experience as a rider, if you – if a horse is wanting to hang out and you turn the rein in, the horse will lead on its outside leg. If you straighten its head up or turn its head to the outside, it’ll actually change and go onto the right leg. We’re saying the reason the horse changed onto the wrong leg was because she kept restraining it with the inside rein. (Transcript, page 1.54)…For a horse that’s hanging out, it’s pretty well in on the rail. So we – we definitely can’t agree that the horse was the matter, had anything to do with it. In fact, we say her actions of restraining the horse caused the horse to race erratic. And if we play on and we get around the home turn, as Apprentice Goldsbury stated, as well, when she asked the horse to quicken or go with the whip, the horse responded. And what we’re saying is if she’d asked – let the reins go a lot earlier, the horse would have responded as well. And, in the home straight, if anything, with the whip in the right hand, which a horse is wanting to hang out, they’d want to shift wider – the horse actually laid into the whip in the home straight and went pretty true. So we were comfortably satisfied that her actions over a significant period of the race – and I’ll just like to clarify, as well, Apprentice Goldsbury said a slight error or – over a second or two will – the – the point from the 600 to the 350 is probably about a 17 or 18 second – periods where we felt she – she made several decisions that were wrong, and we’re not saying that they were split decisions. We’re saying her actions was something that we can’t condone... (Transcript, pages 1.54-1.55)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Goldsbury v QRIC [2018] QCAT 309
PARTIES:	REBECCA MARY GOLDSBURY (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR017-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	21 August 2018
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Dr Collier
ORDERS:	The decisions of the stewards on 13 December 2017 finding, and of Mr Kane Ashby in his Internal Review Decision dated 10 January 2018 affirming, Ms Goldsbury guilty of breaching ARR 135(b) and liable to suspension for 2 months should be set aside and the following decision made: (a) Apprentice Rebecca Goldsbury is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing arising from Race 2 at Toowoomba Racecourse on 2 December 2017.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – Thoroughbred Racing – Apprentice Jockey – where the applicant has been found guilty of a breach of Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing – whether charge is substantiated on review – whether rider of the horse took all reasonable and permissible measures Australian Rules of Racing Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 28(3), s 28(3)(b) In the matter of Jockey: Damian Browne, unreported, Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board, 18 March 2014 In the matter of Licensed Jockey Chris Munce, unreported, Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales, 5 June 2003 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Grylls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 49 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 Oliver v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 50 Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy [2012] QCAT 31 Radecker, MS v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 4
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	J E Murdoch QC
Respondent:	Self-represented by W Kelly