Grylls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2017] QCAT 49

CITATION:	Grylls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 49
PARTIES:	Bridget Ellen Grylls (Applicant)
v
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR187-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Browne
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The original decision (as amended) of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission made on 20 September 2016 that Apprentice Bridget Ellen Grylls is guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing and that a penalty of three (3) weeks suspension be imposed is set aside and the following decision is substituted: a) Apprentice Bridget Ellen Grylls is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing for Race 3 at Doomben Racecourse on 10 September 2016.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR 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 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 19, s 20, s 24 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 240, s 246, Schedule 1 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 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 Racing Queensland Ltd v Cassidy [2012] QCAT 31 Radecker, MS v Queensland Racing [2008] QRAT 4
REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT:	Bridget Ellen Grylls represented by Mr M Tutt, Solicitor, Fowler Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission represented by Mr W Kelly, in-house counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 10 September 2016, apprentice jockey Bridget Grylls rode a thoroughbred horse, ‘Ranked’, in Race 3 at Doomben Racecourse over a distance of 2200 metres.
Ms Grylls was completing the fourth year of her apprenticeship. She would be eligible to apply to become a senior jockey in mid-December 2016.
Another apprentice jockey, Joshua Oliver, was riding a thoroughbred horse ‘Black Jag’ in the same race. Mr Oliver was also completing the fourth year of his apprenticeship.
The horses Ranked and Black Jag finished second last and last respectively after leading the race for most of the distance.
The stewards watching Race 3 opened an inquiry into the riding tactics adopted by Ms Grylls and Mr Oliver. The stewards found Ms Grylls and Mr Oliver guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing. Rule 135(b) provides as follows:
The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.
The…

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 Grylls 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: [2017] QCAT 49
Decision Date: 20 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Grylls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, the court was asked to review a decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) that found apprentice jockey Bridget Ellen Grylls guilty of breaching Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing. The breach pertained to a race on 10 September 2016, at Doomben Racecourse, where Grylls was accused of not taking all reasonable and permissible measures to avoid a collision with another horse. The QRIC imposed a three-week suspension on Grylls, a decision which was subsequently challenged.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the charge against Grylls was substantiated and whether she had taken all reasonable and permissible measures to avoid the collision. The court had to assess the evidence presented, including the transcript of the Stewards' hearing, the evidence of Michael Pelling, a racing expert, and the race footage. The court also needed to consider the applicable racing rules and the interpretation of Rule 135(b).

In reaching its decision, the court found that Grylls did not breach Rule 135(b). The court considered the evidence and concluded that Grylls' actions were consistent with the race dynamics and the position of her horse at the time. The court found that Grylls was comfortable with her horse's racing position and that there were reasonable tactical decisions involved in her ride. The court also highlighted that there were other potential tactical moves Grylls could have made, but these would not necessarily have avoided the collision. The court set aside the QRIC's decision and found Grylls not guilty of the charge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The original decision (as amended) of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission made on 20 September 2016 that Apprentice Bridget Ellen Grylls is guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing and that a penalty of three (3) weeks suspension be imposed is set aside and the following decision is substituted:

a) Apprentice Bridget Ellen Grylls is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing for Race 3 at Doomben Racecourse on 10 September 2016.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Ms Grylls was questioned about the hearing before the Stewards and her statement that the horse Black Jag sat beside her and did not try to go forward and, as stated by her, she ‘sat there coasting the horse’.[32] Ms Grylls stated in regards to the word ‘coasting’ that she was sitting there not urging and not going backwards, stating ‘I was just comfortable where my horse was racing or how my horse was racing’.[32]Exhibit 4, transcript dated 10 September 2016.The evidence of Michael Pelling Mr Pelling’s evidence contained in his affidavit is that, had Ms Grylls restrained her horse to let Mr Oliver’s horse cross her at the back straight (i.e. 1400 metres to 900 metres), she would have found herself in a position behind Mr Oliver. Mr Pelling states that Mr Oliver’s horse was likely to stop quickly given its position and Ms Grylls could have found herself ‘locked in behind him and dragged through the field’.[33][33]Exhibit 3. At the review hearing, Mr Pelling gave oral evidence about the race footage. Mr Pelling stated that Ms Grylls has gone to the lead, stating ‘a dominant position’. Mr Pelling stated that it was ‘quite surprising’ given the speed that they (the horses) were going on a rain-affected track when Mr Oliver’s horse came up to her outside. Mr Pelling stated that there is ‘probably a chance’ that when Mr Oliver came up beside her she could have, had she known what was going to happen later, pulled up then and let Mr Oliver go to the lead. Mr Pelling stated, however, that when looking at the video footage Mr Oliver did not actually look like he wanted to lead. Mr Pelling gave oral evidence about the horses ‘eyeballing’ each other in the race. He stated that the effect of this referring to two horses side-by-side would be to ‘eyeball’ each other and the horses will try to compete against each other as if they are in a ‘gallop’. Mr Pelling stated that Ms Grylls’ ride was more a ‘lack of confidence’. Mr Pelling was cross-examined about the riding tactics adopted by Ms Grylls in the race. Mr Pelling accepted that around the back straight that if Mr Oliver took the lead, Ms Grylls could have eased up, sat behind him, and waited for the horse to come out. Mr Pelling was cross-examined about other tactics (at the back straight) that could have been adopted by Ms Grylls in the race. Mr Pelling was questioned about dropping back (to allow Mr Oliver to lead) as the other horses are a fair distance behind and this would allow her horse to go back around. Mr Pelling stated that Mr Oliver has to get two lengths in front to cross over and he (Mr Oliver) will start slowing down. Mr Pelling stated that it would put Ms Grylls ‘outside’ him because she would know that if she sits there, she is going to be ‘locked in’. When questioned about whether Ms Grylls could go ‘one wide’, Mr Pelling stated that he would imagine the riders behind, as soon as they saw this happening, would ‘put her in a box’. Mr Pelling agreed during cross-examination that Ms Grylls could have eased up and let the outside horse (Ranked) go to the lead and then wait for the horse to come out so she can ‘pop out’ again.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.