Hazelgrove v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2021] QCAT 75

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hazelgrove v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 75

PARTIES: REGINALD HAZELGROVE

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR134-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 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 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 OCR133-20 involving Ms Diane Hannon. Ms Hannon and the applicant, 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 Mr Hazelgrove, these Reasons are identical to those in OCR133-20.
The applicant, Mr Reginald Hazelgrove, is a licensed Greyhound Trainer.
Mr Hazelgrove was charged with the following breaches of the Greyhound Australasia Rules (GAR):
(i)      Charge 1: GAR86(f)(i)
That on Thursday 14 November 2019 Mr Hazelgrove did engage in improper conduct and used offensive language towards the Investigative Stewards.
(ii)      Charge 2: GAR86(p)
That on 14 November 2019, Mr Hazelgrove did fail to comply with the lawful order of a Steward, in that he failed to provide his mobile phone when directed; and
(iii)     Charge 3: GAR79A(7)
That on 14 November 2019, Mr Hazelgrove was found to have in his possession at his 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 – disqualify…

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 Hazelgrove 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 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hazelgrove v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, the Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) regarding the disqualification of Reginald Hazelgrove, a licensed Greyhound Trainer, for possessing a banned substance at his kennels. Hazelgrove had been charged with possessing Nandrolone, a permanently banned substance, and was found guilty of this breach. The Tribunal considered Hazelgrove’s argument that he was denied natural justice because QRIC did not provide him with their Standard Operating Procedure prior to the investigation. Hazelgrove contended that had he been given the SOP, he might have acted differently. The Tribunal found that Hazelgrove had not provided any evidence to suggest that the procedure was not followed, nor had he challenged the correctness of the decision once the SOP was provided to him. The Tribunal further held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the availability of the SOP in these circumstances.

The Tribunal also examined the penalty imposed on Hazelgrove, a 9-month disqualification. The Tribunal considered the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and mitigating factors such as Hazelgrove’s long experience in the industry, lack of prior offences, and cooperation with the regulatory authority. The Tribunal concluded that the 9-month penalty was within the reasonable range for such a serious offence, which undermines the integrity of greyhound racing and public confidence in it. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the 9-month disqualification imposed by QRIC.

Orders