Green v Racing Queensland Ltd

CITATION: Green v Racing Queensland [2012] QCAT 269

PARTIES:	Hayden Green (Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL305-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: K S Dodds, Member

DELIVERED ON: 21 December 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the Appellant held a licence to drive harness racing horses – where an enquiry was held into the Appellant’s driving tactics – where the appellant was charged under the Australian Harness Racing Rules – where the Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge – where the Appellant was penalised – where Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed – whether the penalty was appropriate – whether the penalty was manifestly excessive – whether the penalty took into account mitigating circumstances 

Australian Harness Racing Rules, r 149
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’), which reviewed the imposition by stewards of a six month suspension of the appellant’s licence to drive harness racing horses.  The Tribunal confirmed the stewards’ decision.

1. The grounds of the appeal are:

i)     the penalty was manifestly excessive in that: it did not properly take account of the mitigating circumstances;

ii)    the penalty did not give any benefit for the appellant’s plea of guilty or co-operation in the administration of justice; and

iii)   the penalty was not consistent with case law.

Background

1. Immediately after race two at a harness meeting held at Redcliffe on 18 July 2012, stewards opened an enquiry into the appellant’s driving tactics, specifically the manner in which a horse “Streetsafe” was driven in that race. 

1. In issue was what had occurred in the home straight to the finish line.  On turning into the home straight Streetsafe was running behind another horse “African Sign”, which was driven by the daughter of the trainer of Streetsafe.  African Sign, despite challenges, had held the lead run on the fence throughout the race.  In the straight African Sign deviated toward the outside of the track, which left clear running in front of Streetsafe to the finish line.  Streetsafe moved through quickly ahead of African Sign.  At that time the appellant stopped driving Streetsafe on.  African Sign was driven hard to the finish, then headed Streetscape to win the race.

1. Before the stewards’ enquiry were the appellant and the trainer of Streetsafe.  At the commencement the chairman briefly described the running of the race.  Relevantly he said:

…on the final turn Streetsafe was able to avail to the sprint lane and I was watching Mr Green in response to that horse getting to the line.  I felt it hadn’t used any energy in the run and would…