Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2018] QCAT 198

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2018] QCAT 198
PARTIES:	DARREL WILLIAM GRAHAM (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR174-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2019
HEARING DATE:	18 September 2018 19 September 2018 3 October 2018 23 July 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Aughterson
ORDERS:	1. 1. The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is set aside as to penalty. 2. 2. In substitution, Darrel William Graham is suspended from holding a drivers licence and a trainers licence for 12 months, commencing 2 weeks from the date of this order.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – Harness Racing Trainer – where charge of failure to present a horse free of prohibited substances – where urine sample was above the cobalt threshold – whether distinction to be drawn between organic and inorganic cobalt – whether certifications as to cobalt readings valid and admissible – where carelessness in the feeding and supplement regime –whether disqualification or some lesser penalty appropriate Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C Australian Harness Racing Rules, r 188A, r 189, r 190, r 191, r 259 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 28(3)(b) Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 78(2), s 79, s 91(1), s 132, s 145, s 147 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (138) 60 CLR 336 Cole v Harness Racing Victoria [2018] VCAT 1930 Day v Harness Racing NSW [2014] NSWSC 1402 Day v Sanders [2015] NSWCA 324 Demmler v Harness Racing Victoria Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board [2017] VCAT 600 Harness Racing Victoria v Chisholm [2017] VCAT 1620 Harness Racing Victoria v Ross Graham (unreported, Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board,10 August 2017) Hooper v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 236 Hope v Racing Victoria Limited (No 2) (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1688 Kavanagh v Racing Victoria Limited (No 2) (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 291 McDonough v Harness Racing Victoria [2008] VCAT 291 Morrisey v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2018] QCAT 161 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146 R v Trochym [2007] 1 SCR 239 Racing Victoria v Kavanagh [2017] VSCA 334 Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2018] QCATA 39 RVL Stewards v Peter Moody (Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board – 16 March 2017, penalty 17 March 2016 Scott v Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018] QCAT 301 Tuite v The Queen [2015] VR 196 Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168 Weeks v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 345 Xuereb v Racing Victoria Limited (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 473
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	J E Murdoch QC, instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors
Respondent:	R J Anderson QC, instructed by Landers & Rogers Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On 30 May 2015, the gelding Mafuta Vautin was placed first in race 5 at Albion Park.…

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 Graham 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: [2018] QCAT 198
Decision Date: 31 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved the appellant, Darrel William Graham, who was a harness racing trainer, and the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC). Graham was charged with a breach of racing rules after a urine sample from one of his horses tested above the permitted threshold for cobalt. The dispute centered on whether the elevated cobalt level constituted an offence, whether there was a valid distinction between organic and inorganic cobalt, the admissibility of certifications related to the cobalt readings, and the appropriate penalty for the breach. The matter was brought before the court to determine these issues.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of the racing rules concerning prohibited substances, specifically cobalt, in the context of harness racing. The court had to determine if there was a legitimate distinction between organic and inorganic cobalt and whether this distinction impacted the admissibility of certifications provided by a laboratory. Additionally, the court considered the nature and extent of carelessness exhibited by Graham in the feeding and supplement regime of his horses and whether this warranted a lesser penalty than disqualification.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the interpretation of the racing rules and the credibility of the certifications. It was found that the distinction between organic and inorganic cobalt was not relevant to the offence charged. The certifications provided by the laboratory were deemed valid and admissible. The court also acknowledged the carelessness in Graham's feeding and supplement regime but determined that the breach was serious enough to warrant a significant penalty. The court set aside the QRIC's decision regarding the penalty and substituted it with a 12-month suspension of Graham's drivers licence and trainers licence.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the QRIC's decision as to the penalty and substituting it with a 12-month suspension of Graham's drivers licence and trainers licence, effective from two weeks after the date of the order. This ruling provided clarity on the application of racing rules concerning prohibited substances and the appropriate penalty for breaches in harness racing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 1. The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is set aside as to penalty.

2. 2. In substitution, Darrel William Graham is suspended from holding a drivers licence and a trainers licence for 12 months, commencing 2 weeks from the date of this order.

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.