Hannon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2021] QCAT 74

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hannon v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 74

PARTIES: DIANE HANNON

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR133-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2021

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

ORDERS:
The reviewable decision, being the internal review decision of 2 April 2020, is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – GENERALLY where investigative steward attended the applicant’s greyhound kennels – where permanently prohibited substances located at the kennels – where applicant accepts this to be the case – where applicant charged with breach of Rule 79A(7) of the Greyhound Australasia Rules – whether failure to provide applicant with access to the respondent’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prior to the investigation a failure to provide natural justice – where no failure to comply with the SOP identified - whether charge should nonetheless be set aside – determination of appropriate penalty.

Greyhound Australasia Rules, Rule 79A, 79A(2), (4) and (7), Rule 80, Rule 81(2), Rule 86(f)(i), Rule 86(p)

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

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 3(1), s 246

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Fang v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 135 ALR 583
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146
Russell v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 329

Taylor v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 576

APPEARANCES &
REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

Mr J Fuller, Gadens

Respondent:

Mr SA McLeod QC, instructed by QRIC Legal

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter is related to the matter OCR134-20 involving Mr Reginald Hazelgrove. Ms Hannon and Mr Hazelgrove are both licensed greyhound trainers with the same registered kennel address. On 3 November 2020, the Tribunal made a direction that matters OCR133-20 and OCR134-20 would remain separate files but be heard and determined together. Ms Hannon and Mr Hazelgrove made joint submissions and were represented by the same legal representative at the hearing. Consequently, except where necessarily and specifically related to Ms Hannon, these Reasons are identical to those in OCR134-20.
The applicant, Ms Diane Hannon, is a licensed Greyhound Trainer.
Ms Hannon was charged with the following breaches of the Greyhound Australasia Rules (GAR):
(i)      Charge 1: GAR86(f)(i)
That on Thursday 14 November 2019, Ms Hannon did engage in improper conduct and used offensive language towards the Investigative Stewards.
(ii)      Charge 2: GAR86(p)
That on 14 November 2019, Ms Hannon did fail to comply with the lawful order of a Steward, in that she failed to provide his mobile phone when directed; and
(iii)     Charge 3: GAR79A(7)
That on 14 November 2019, Ms Hannon was found to have in her possession at her registered address, a permanently banned substance, namely Nandrolone.
A Stewards’ Inquiry was held on 21 February 2020 where it was concluded that each of the charges had been substantiated and the following penalties imposed:
Charge 1 –…

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 Hannon 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: [2021] QCAT 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diane Hannon, a licensed Greyhound Trainer, sought review of a decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) that she contravened Rule 79A(7) of the Greyhound Australasia Rules (GAR) and impose a 9-month disqualification. Ms Hannon was charged with having a permanently banned substance at her kennels, which she admitted. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether there was a failure to provide natural justice by not providing the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission Standard Operating Procedure: Collection of Samples and Things (SOP) to the applicant prior to the investigation, and if so, whether this warranted setting aside the charge.

The Tribunal found that there was no authority suggesting that considerations of procedural fairness apply to the issue of whether a procedural manual is made available to racing participants before an investigation. Further, there was no “free-standing” right to be accorded procedural fairness. There must be an administrative decision to which the principles can properly attach. The Tribunal also accepted the submissions of the respondent that the Tribunal should not look behind the Certificate of Analysis unless there is clear evidence that something has adversely affected the integrity of the testing procedure. Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the internal review decision that Ms Hannon contravened GAR Rule 79A(7).

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the respondent that, given the seriousness of the offence, 9 months disqualification is within the reasonable range of penalty for this offence. The Tribunal also took into account Ms Hannon's extensive experience in the greyhound racing industry, no prior offences of this nature under the GAR, and that she cooperated with the regulatory authority. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of 9 months disqualification.

The Tribunal confirmed the internal review decision that Ms Hannon contravened GAR Rule 79A(7) and imposed a 9-month disqualification.

Orders