Law v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2021] QCAT 39

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Law v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 39

PARTIES: RAYMOND LAW

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR309-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 January 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

ORDERS:
The reviewable decision, being the reconsidered decision of 12 June 2020, is set aside and substituted with the following decision:

1. The applicant has contravened rule 240(c) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules.

2. The applicant is disqualified from racing for nine (9) months, from 11 June 2019 to 11 March 2020 and, upon re-instatement of the applicant’s licence, for a further nine (9) months, wholly suspended.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – where Stewards upheld protest against applicant following race at Albion Park on 11 June 2019 – where applicant went from first place to fourth place - where applicant involved in verbal and physical altercation with other licensees following Stewards’ Inquiry – where applicant also abusive and threatening towards a Steward attempting to assist at time of altercation – whether breach of Australian Harness Rules, rule 240(c) – consideration of appropriate penalty.

Australian Harness Racing Rules, rule 240(c)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 23

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 240

Hooper v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 346
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 110
Robbins v Harness Racing Board [1984] VR 641

Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 86

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter arose out of events subsequent to a horse race at Albion Park. The race was race 5 at Albion Park on 11 June 2019. Mr Raymond Law, the applicant, was the driver of a horse, Golddigger Girl, and Mr Matthew Elkins and Mr Chris Frisby were the driver and trainer respectively of another horse in the race, Aunty Bessy.
Golddigger Girl was initially placed first in the race. However, Mr Elkins lodged a protest against Mr Law alleging interference. A protest hearing was conducted which upheld the protest, resulting in Golddigger Girl being placed fourth and Aunty Bessy being elevated to third placing. Mr Law reacted badly to that decision and engaged in conduct involving Mr Frisby and members of the Elkins family which led to Mr Law being charged with doing something after a race which was, in the opinion of the Stewards, ‘improper’ within the meaning of rule 240(c) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR).
Mr Law was asked to attend a Stewards’ Inquiry into this post-race conduct on 11 June 2019 but declined to do so. The Inquiry proceeded on 11 June 2019 with Stewards Messrs L. Wilson, N. Finnigan and J. Hackett conducting interviews with the following witnesses: Mr D.Gatt, Mr C. Cini, Ms C.Turpin, Mr J.Wallace, Mr G.Elkins, Mr C.Frisby, Mr J Elkins, Mr R.Macquire, Mr M Elkins…

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 Law 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 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Mr Law and the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission. The Commission had imposed a penalty on Mr Law for his conduct during a protest hearing, which Mr Law sought to overturn. The central issue before the court was whether the Commission's decision, including the imposition of penalty, should be upheld. A key factual dispute was whether Mr Law had "king-hit" Mr Frisby. Mr Law denied this and argued that the Commission's witnesses contradicted this claim, while the Commission maintained that the direct evidence of Mr Frisby was supported by the accounts of Matthew Elkins and Ms Mandy Rail.

The court examined the testimonies of Mr Frisby, Mr Matthew Elkins, and Mr Law to determine the credibility of their statements. Mr Frisby claimed that Mr Law had struck him on the side of the head, knocking him half-over. Mr Matthew Elkins corroborated this by stating that he heard something hit Mr Frisby and subsequently saw Mr Law throw Mr Frisby against the wall. In contrast, Mr Law denied the allegations and asserted that he would never strike someone from behind, especially an elderly man like Mr Frisby.

After considering the evidence, the court concluded that the testimony of Mr Frisby and Mr Matthew Elkins was more credible than that of Mr Law. The court found that the Commission's decision, including the penalty imposed, should be confirmed. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Law had indeed "king-hit" Mr Frisby, and therefore upheld the Commission's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The respondent submitted that the decision, including on penalty, should be confirmed.Consideration There is a factual issue about whether Mr Law “king-hit” Mr Frisby. Mr Law denies this occurred and claims that all the respondent’s witnesses (apart from Mr Frisby) contradict this claim. The respondent submits that the direct evidence of Mr Frisby is supported by the evidence of Matthew Elkins and Ms Mandy Rail who was at the Acceptance Desk near the Stewards’ room and saw pushing and shoving and heard Mr Frisby call out “stop it”. The alleged “king-hit” occurred when the men, Mr Law, Mr Matthew Elkins and Mr Frisby were walking, single-file down the corridor away from the protest hearing. Mr Frisby gave evidence as follows:Mr Frisby: When I went past the counter here, Mr Law king hit me, and young Matt grabbed hold of him to – Chairman: So he king hit you?Mr Frisby: Yes.Chairman: Whereabouts did he hit you?Mr Frisby: Right on the side of the head. He king hit me.[9]…He [Mr Matthew Elkins] was trying – he was trying to restrain him to because he – he grabbed him when he king hit me, because he sort of knocked me half arse overhead, if you know me. I got up and – and then they were sort of wrestling. I just grabbed him: “Come on, mate. Settle down. Don’t be stupid.”[10][9]T, 17.[10]T, 19. Mr Matthew Elkins gave evidence as follows:…there were words being thrown from Mr Law, and then he – we were sort of walking out in single file. I didn’t actually see the punch but I heard something hit Mr Frisby, and then he just threw Mr Frisby up against the wall, and that’s when I came in. I just – had no intention of throwing punches, nothing like that. All I was there to do was get Mr Law off Mr Frisby. I mean, it’s not a fair match up walking through that hallway and someone comes from behind at you.…I was just trying to calm him down and make sure he wasn’t going to hit Mr Frisby again.[11][11]T, 30. Mr Law gave evidence as follows:Mr Law: And then we’d walked down the hallway, and Mr Frisby – I said to Mr Frisby, “You really had to protest.” Like, he’s quite a wealthy man. He’s got a good business and horses and all this kind of stuff. Then he said to me, “Well, I had a bet so I had to protest.” ……Chairman: So you reacted because he said he had a bet – Mr Law: Because he said that to me, and I felt – as I said, all the stress and pressure I have been under leading into this – the end of financial year, trying to – this horse owes me 14, 000 still. …And all of that has just got me angry as why – you know, I’ve lost 4, 000 of what I could have earned then of that money she owes me back. The owner know [sic] it and I’ve got to earn that back to get my money back, and that sort of just made me – made me angry. I pushed him. I know he said in the transcript that I king hit him, but I can tell you right now that’s not how I work. I don’t king hit anyone. If I’m going to deal with someone I deal with them front on, and to king hit an old man like Mr Frisby – like he’s 50 years old or something. I would never king hit someone - [12][12]T, Day 2, 6.

CITATION:	Law v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 39
PARTIES:	RAYMOND LAW
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR309-19
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	13 January 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Traves
ORDERS:	The reviewable decision, being the reconsidered decision of 12 June 2020, is set aside and substituted with the following decision: 1. The applicant has contravened rule 240(c) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules. 2. The applicant is disqualified from racing for nine (9) months, from 11 June 2019 to 11 March 2020 and, upon re-instatement of the applicant’s licence, for a further nine (9) months, wholly suspended.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – where Stewards upheld protest against applicant following race at Albion Park on 11 June 2019 – where applicant went from first place to fourth place - where applicant involved in verbal and physical altercation with other licensees following Stewards’ Inquiry – where applicant also abusive and threatening towards a Steward attempting to assist at time of altercation – whether breach of Australian Harness Rules, rule 240(c) – consideration of appropriate penalty. Australian Harness Racing Rules, rule 240(c) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 23 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246 Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 240 Hooper v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 346 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 110 Robbins v Harness Racing Board [1984] VR 641 Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 86