Hooper v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2017] QCAT 236

CITATION:	Hooper v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 236
PARTIES:	Darren Ian Hooper (Applicant)
v
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR 212-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	22 June 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Olding
DELIVERED ON:	11 July 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The decisions of the Respondent dated 4 November 2016 confirming conviction for the three offences are confirmed. 2. The decisions as to penalty are set aside and substituted with a penalty of 12 months disqualification for each offence, three months of each penalty to be served concurrently, making an aggregate disqualification period of 30 months. 3. The disqualification commences 14 days after midnight on the date of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – Harness Racing Trainers – failure to present a horse free of prohibited substances – whether strict compliance with testing and certification requirements – standard of proof – penalty – period of disqualification – previous disciplinary history – cumulative or concurrent penalties Australian Harness Racing Rules, r 190, r 191, r 257 and r 309 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Racing Act 2002 (Qld), Chapter 4, Part 4 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 In the matter of Bruce Stanley, unreported, Racing and Wagering Western Australia Stewards Inquiry (2 June 2016) In the matter of Daryl Hansen, unreported, Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board (30 August 2016) Bruce Stanley David Crawford v Stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria, unreported, Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (13 July 2016) Day v Harness Racing New South Wales (2015) NSWLR 764; [2014] NSWCA 423 In the matter of the appeal of Garry McCarney, unreported, Racing Appeal Panel of New South Wales (24 April 2017) Kavanagh v Racing Victoria Limited [2017] VCAT 386 In the matter of Mark Lutter, unreported, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission Stewards’ Report (2 August 2016) Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 In the matter of L Paton, unreported, Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board (13 September 2016) Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Belford [2017] QCATA 42 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146 In the matter of Rochelle Smith, Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board (31 August 2016) In the matter of Shaun Grimsey, Racing Queensland Stewards Report (7 July 2015) Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2014) 226 FCR 555; [2014] FCAFC 93
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Mr T Ryan of Counsel, instructed by Butler McDermott
RESPONDENT:	Mr R.J. Anderson of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Lander & Rogers

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Mr Hooper, is a licensed horse trainer. On 6 October 2016, a Stewards Inquiry found he committed three breaches of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (“the Rules”), which require a horse to be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. A penalty of 12 months disqualification was imposed for each offence,…

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 Hooper 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 236
Decision Date: 11 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Mr. Hooper, a licensed harness racing trainer, against the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC). Mr. Hooper was found guilty of three charges under the Racing and Gaming Act 1992, including failing to present a horse free of prohibited substances. The QRIC found Mr. Hooper guilty and imposed a penalty, which he then appealed on various grounds. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues in the appeal revolved around the strict compliance required in testing and certification requirements, the standard of proof needed to establish the offences, the appropriateness of the penalty imposed, and whether the penalties should be cumulative or concurrent. Mr. Hooper argued that the QRIC had not strictly complied with the requirements of the Act, that the standard of proof was not met, and that the penalties imposed were excessive and should be concurrent rather than cumulative.

The Court of Appeal found that the QRIC had indeed strictly complied with the requirements of the Act and that the standard of proof was adequately met. However, the Court considered the penalties imposed by the QRIC to be excessive. The Court substituted the penalties with a 12-month disqualification for each offence, with three months of each penalty to be served concurrently, resulting in an aggregate disqualification of 30 months. The Court also considered Mr. Hooper's previous disciplinary history in determining the appropriate penalty.

The orders of the Court were that the QRIC’s decisions confirming the conviction were upheld, but the penalty was set aside and replaced with a 12-month disqualification for each offence, with three months of each penalty to run concurrently. The disqualification period totalled 30 months and was to commence 14 days after the date of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decisions of the Respondent dated 4 November 2016 confirming conviction for the three offences are confirmed.

2. The decisions as to penalty are set aside and substituted with a penalty of 12 months disqualification for each offence, three months of each penalty to be served concurrently, making an aggregate disqualification period of 30 months.

3. The disqualification commences 14 days after midnight on the date of this decision.

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.