Hanrahan v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
[2025] QCATA 100
•31 October 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Hanrahan v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2025] QCATA 100
PARTIES:
BRONWYN HANRAHAN (applicant/appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL290-25
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
31 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Fitzpatrick
ORDERS:
The application for a stay of the decision of the Racing Appeals Panel made on 26 June 2025 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where Stewards impose penalty of a fine and suspension of licence for 12 months – where suspension of licence charge suspended wholly for two years conditional upon good behaviour – where applicant cannot obtain her licence until the fine is paid or payment plan is entered into – whether a monetary fine falls within the definition of “disqualification action” under the Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld) – whether the Appeal Tribunal can grant a stay of the decision of the Stewards
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14B
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 145
Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld), s 252AA, s 252AH, s 252AU, sch 1
Associated Newpapers Ltd v Wavish (1956) 96 CLR 526
Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104
Gillespie v Ford (1978) 19 ALR 102R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
E Ballard, solicitor
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant, Bronwyn Hanrahan, has filed an appeal against a decision of the Racing Appeals Panel made on 26 June 2025 pursuant to s 252AH of the Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld) (‘RI Act’) – to confirm a racing decision of the Stewards to impose a penalty on Ms Hanrahan.
On 26 May 2025 the penalty imposed by the Stewards was:
(a)for charge one a fine of $6,000.00;
(b)for charges two and three a fine of $6,000.00 for each charge and a suspension of licence for a period of 12 months for each charge.
(c)the penalties for charges two and three suspended for a period of two years, conditional upon Ms Hanrahan not being found in breach of any matters relating to a prohibited substance during that time.
Ms Hanrahan seeks a stay of the Racing Appeals Panel’s decision.
To succeed in a stay application Ms Hanrahan must show a reasonably arguable case, that she would be materially disadvantaged without a stay, and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay.[1]
[1]Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104 [6].
The application will be considered pursuant to s 145 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).
Submissions
The application stresses that Ms Hanrahan does not believe she should have to pay a $6,000.00 fine for “something I haven’t done”. Ms Hanrahan says she cannot obtain her licence until the fine is paid or a payment plan is entered into.
Ms Hanrahan says that without her licence she is unable to train four horses. That is said to impact the horses and her ability to earn an income. Ms Hanrahan says that if her licence is not renewed in a given time frame, with the advantage of a stay of the decision, she may be treated as a new applicant which will cause further delay before she secures her licence.
Plainly the focus of Ms Hanrahan’s desire for a stay, is a stay of the requirement to pay the $6,000.00 fine rather than the suspension of her licence.
By reference to s 252AU(1) of the RI Act, the respondent Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (‘QRIC’) raises two impediments to the appeal and to the application for a stay of the Racing Appeals Panel’s decision:
(a)Ms Hanrahan was not a party to a proceeding in which the Racing Appeals Panel imposed disqualification as a penalty; and
(b)A monetary fine does not fall within the meaning of “disqualification action”.
Statutory framework
By s 252AU of the RI Act a party may appeal to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’) Appeal Tribunal against a Racing Appeals Panel decision “only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action”.
Disqualification action is defined in s 252AA of the RI Act:
disqualification action, against a person, means action that–
(a) is disciplinary action relating to the person’s approval or licence or exclusion action against the person; and
(b) prevents the person from doing any of the following for a period of 3 months or longer–
(i) attending a race meeting;
(ii) betting;
(iii) bookmaking;
(iv) racing an animal
Examples–
·disciplinary action to suspend the licence of a licence holder for an animal for 3 months
·disciplinary action to cancel the licence of a licence holder
·exclusion action to warn off a person from entering, or remaining at, a racecourse for 6 months
Disciplinary action is defined in sch 1 to the RI Act:
disciplinary action, relating to an approval or licence, means 1 or more of the following– (relevantly):
…
(b) suspending the … licence for a stated period;
…
(d) for a licence–
(i) imposing a monetary penalty; or
…
What do the sections mean?
A construction issue arises in the definition of disqualification action. Does the definition include a monetary penalty, which is defined as disciplinary action? Or, relevant to these facts, is disqualification action limited to the type of disciplinary action which prevents a person from racing an animal for a period of 3 months or longer?
To adopt the former construction the legislature must have intended that disqualification action may mean either (a) or (b) for the purpose of pt 4 of the RI Act. This construction does not have the effect of reading “and” as “or”. The “and” gives a cumulative effect to the definition so that all the matters mentioned in the sub-paragraphs indicate what is meant by disqualification action – but a dispersive effect is given to the sub-paragraphs by the word “means”. That is sub-paragraph (a) and sub-paragraph (b) are each an example of disqualification action.[2]
[2]Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wavish (1956) 96 CLR 526; Gillespie v Ford (1978) 19 ALR 102, 107–8; D Pearce, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 9th ed, 2019) 2.49.
That construction gives rise to an internal inconsistency. Although that construction would catch a monetary penalty it would also catch all suspensions of a licence for any period of time. Sub-paragraph (b) makes it clear that the legislature only intended a right of appeal to the QCAT Appeal Tribunal where a suspension is for a period of 3 months or longer. The two cannot stand together.
By s 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act1954 (Qld) I may consider extrinsic material to assist interpretation if a provision is ambiguous.
The Explanatory Notes to the Racing Integrity Amendment Bill 2022 (Qld) provide that s 252AU of the RI Act limits the matters that a party dissatisfied with the Racing Appeals Panel’s decision on their review application may appeal to the QCAT Appeal Tribunal. The Explanatory Notes provide that appealable decisions are limited to a decision of the Racing Appeals Panel which includes disqualification action, which is a disciplinary action relating to the person’s approval or licence or exclusion action against the person that prevents a person from betting, bookmaking, racing an animal or attending a race meeting for 3 months or longer, and only on a question of law relating to the disqualification action.
The approach is said to be justified because an objective of establishing the Racing Appeals Panel as an independent review panel is to finalise review applications in a short timeframe.
On this analysis disqualification action does not include a monetary penalty.
Can a stay be granted in relation to payment of a fine?
Because of the meaning I have given to “disqualification action” I conclude that an appeal in relation to the fines imposed on Ms Hanrahan cannot be allowed. As a result, no reasonably arguable case with respect to the appeal can be put and no stay is available in aid of the final determination of the appeal.
Can a stay be granted in relation to a wholly suspended suspension of a licence?
I will deal now with the other objection to a stay raised by QRIC, that is, Ms Hanrahan was not subject to disqualification as a penalty.
Although Ms Hanrahan has not framed her application for a stay by reference to the suspensions imposed on her, I will for completeness deal with the issue.
The submission is that a penalty of a twelve-month suspension, wholly suspended for a period of two years in relation to the second and third offences does not “prevent” Ms Hanrahan from engaging in the activities set out in s 252AA(b) of the RI Act.
It is true that provided there is no finding of breach of any matters relating to a prohibited substance during the period of two years from imposition of the penalties, Ms Hanrahan will not be prevented from racing an animal. However, I do not accept that a disqualification has not been imposed on Ms Hanrahan which will prevent her from racing an animal for a period of longer than 3 months. There has been a finding of guilt and the imposition of a penalty by disciplinary action. That does not change simply because enforcement is delayed.[3] If there was a breach of the terms of the suspension then Ms Hanrahan would be prevented from racing an animal for a period of twelve months.
[3]R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17.
I conclude that a wholly suspended suspension falls within the definition of “disqualification action” under s 252AA of the RI Act for the purposes of s 252AU of the RI Act.
Ms Hanrahan does have a right to bring the appeal she seeks to pursue; however, the scope of the appeal is very limited. Ms Hanrahan has made no submission as to an error of law on the part of the Racing Appeals Panel in relation to the extent of the penalty. Ms Hanrahan has not shown a reasonably arguable case on appeal.
As the suspensions are not currently being enforced, I do not consider Ms Hanrahan has suffered a detriment or that the balance of convenience falls in her favour. Once she pays her fine Ms Hanrahan should be able to race animals pursuant to her licence. There is no utility in a stay in those circumstances.
Discussion
QRIC submit that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make the orders sought by Ms Hanrahan to have the finding of guilt set aside and for the horse to be reinstated to its placings and the prizemoney paid.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this decision to explore the extent of the Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction on a final determination. That will involve consideration of the meaning of “only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action.”[4]
[4]Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld) s 252AU(2).
As the amendments to the RI Act intended to limit rights of appeal to the Tribunal are relatively new, there is little guidance from the cases on the meaning of those words.
I note that Ms Hanrahan has filed an appeal book, however she has not addressed the question of law which arises in this matter. I intend to conduct a Directions Hearing on a date to be advised where the following issues will be discussed:
(a)whether the material in Ms Hanrahan’s appeal book includes only evidence before the Racing Appeals Panel or whether additional evidence is sought to be relied upon.
(b)what question of law relating to the extent of disqualification is raised in this matter.
The last question raises difficult concepts on which Ms Hanrahan may wish to seek advice.
Order
The application for a stay of the decision of the Racing Appeals Panel made on 26 June 2025 is refused.
0
4
3