Hansen v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2) - [2011] QCAT 610

CITATION:

Hansen v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2) [2011] QCAT 610

PARTIES:	Mr Darryl John Hansen
v
Racing Queensland Limited

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR177-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Brockwell Miller, Member
James Allen, Member

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. That the Stewards’ decision that Mr Hansen be disqualified for six months be confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – where applicant found to have prohibited substance in excess of threshold on analysis – where financial position will be of significant issue – whether penalty should be reduced in such circumstances

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 Act2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Darryl Hansen has been convicted of a breach of AR178 in that he presented a horse to race while it had in its system a prohibited substance above a threshold level. The Stewards imposed a penalty of six months disqualification and against that period of disqualification, the Applicant has sought this Tribunal to intervene and review the penalty.

The facts and circumstances leading to the conviction of the Applicant are canvassed in the Reasons published by this Tribunal previously. The Applicant has expressed the view that disqualification of his licence for a period of six months is, in all the circumstances, unreasonable and excessive. The parties have agreed to the issue of penalty being determined on the papers and both the Applicant and the Respondent have provided submissions on penalty.

The Applicant has referred in particular to the content of an Affidavit of Debbie-Rose Hansen who is his wife but who is together with the Applicant, responsible for the finances and management of the business of the trainer’s operation. The Affidavit has identified average weekly expenses incurred by him to be $13,477.15 and has noted that, if the period of disqualification is to stand, it will have a significant effect upon both full-time and part-time employees to which reference is made in the Affidavit. Furthermore, it has been identified that the Applicant is committed to a lease of stabling facilities at Corbould Park, the rent for which is noted at $7,800.00 per calendar month plus GST.

The Applicant has confirmed that the failure of this Tribunal to interfere with the disqualification period would be ruinous and in all probability may result in significant financial detriment being occasioned to the Applicant and to his family from which he may never recover. This is certainly something that must be taken into account by the Tribunal upon its review but in doing so, the Tribunal must have recourse to the offence that has been committed and the need to ensure that the penalty imposed is adequate but that at the same time it acts as a deterrent to other members of the racing fraternity from breaching the rules of racing in similar circumstances.

The Respondent of course has,…

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 Hansen v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2) 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: [2011] QCAT 610
Decision Date: 30 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hansen v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2), the applicant, a professional jockey, sought a review of the penalty imposed upon him for being found to have a prohibited substance in his system. The substance was detected after he participated in a race organised by the respondent, Racing Queensland Limited. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had the authority to review decisions made by the Stewards of the respondent regarding racing penalties.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the penalty imposed by the Stewards was appropriate and whether the Tribunal should take into account the financial position of the applicant in determining an appropriate penalty. The Tribunal considered whether the penalty should be reduced given the applicant’s financial circumstances, which were described as dire.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed by the Stewards. It held that the financial position of the applicant, while a relevant factor, was not sufficient to warrant a reduction in the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the rules were designed to maintain the integrity of racing and that penalties must be imposed to deter future breaches. The Tribunal also considered the need to maintain consistency in the imposition of penalties across the racing industry.

The Tribunal confirmed the Stewards’ decision that the applicant be disqualified for six months. It noted that the penalty reflected the seriousness of the breach and that it was necessary to maintain the integrity of the sport. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had a history of breaches and that the penalty was consistent with those imposed in similar cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the Stewards’ decision that Mr Hansen be disqualified for six months be confirmed.

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.