McMullen v Racing Queensland Ltd - [2012] QCAT 286

CITATION:

McMullen v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 286

PARTIES:	Mr Peter John McMullen (Applicant)
v
Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR080-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

23 May 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mr Richard Oliver, Senior Member
Mr Jeremy Gordon, Member

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

That the stewards’ decision is set aside and a not guilty finding is substituted.

CATCHWORDS:

RACING – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY DECISION – applicant found guilty of driving in a manner which in the opinion of the stewards is unacceptable – test to apply

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 19, 20
Racing Act 2002

Australian Harness Racing Rules 149(2)

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 considered
Queensland Racing Ltd v McMahon [2010] QCATA 73 considered
Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board: Case of Ford (24 January 2008) applied
Misfud v Racing Victoria Stewards [2007] VRAT 6 applied
Racing Queensland Ltd v Bellamy [2011] QCATA 30 considered
Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales: Siejka (22 November 2010); Panella (15 March 2012); Rue (17 April 2012); O’Shea (17 April 2012) and Hallcroft (2 May 2012) considered

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Mr Scott Neaves (counsel)
RESPONDENT:	Mr Cameron McLune, Stipendiary Steward (Harness)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Peter McMullen holds an A Grade Trainer’s and Driver’s Licence under the Australian Harness Racing Rules made under the Racing Act 2002.

Mr McMullen drove OCTOBER SON in a harness race at Albion Park on 14 February 2012. After the race, there was a stewards’ inquiry. That was adjourned and resumed on 5 March 2012. At the resumed inquiry Mr McMullen was charged under Rule 149(2) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules which reads:

“(2) A person shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is unacceptable.”

The particulars of the charge were that:

Mr McMullen elected to remain in a position behind horses from approximately the 300 metre mark rather than to ease wider on the track around runners to give his horse an uninterrupted passage to the finish. This decision resulted in OCTOBER SON failing to secure clear running at any stage in the run to the finishing line.

Mr McMullen pleaded not guilty to the charge, but the stewards found him guilty on 5 March 2012 and suspended his licence for six weeks. This was a “reviewable decision” under Local Rule LR(AC)1, therefore Mr McMullen was able to appeal against both conviction and penalty to the First Level Appeal Committee of Racing Queensland. This appeal was heard on 15 March 2012 but it was unsuccessful.

Following the First Level Appeal, the suspension took effect from midnight on 17 March 2012. Mr McMullen applied to QCAT for a review on 20 March 2012 and by consent on 21 March 2012 the decision to suspend his licence was stayed under further order of the Tribunal.

QCAT’s approach

The review jurisdiction is conferred on…

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 McMullen v Racing Queensland Ltd 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: [2012] QCAT 286
Decision Date: 31 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, McMullen, was found guilty by Racing Queensland Ltd of driving in a manner deemed unacceptable by the stewards. This decision was made in the context of a disciplinary hearing following an incident during a race. The applicant sought a review of this decision, arguing that the stewards' conclusion was not supported by the evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the stewards' decision was legally sound and whether it was open to the stewards to have reached the conclusion they did.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the stewards' decision was lawful and whether there was a basis in the evidence for the finding of guilt. The court needed to assess whether the stewards applied the correct legal principles in their decision-making process and whether their decision was reasonable in light of the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the stewards correctly interpreted and applied the relevant rules and regulations governing race driving conduct.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the stewards had not correctly applied the relevant legal standards. The court held that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the applicant's driving was unacceptable. The court determined that the stewards' decision was not open to them based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the court set aside the stewards' decision and substituted a finding of not guilty. The court's reasoning emphasised the need for stewards to carefully consider the evidence and ensure that their decision is supported by a proper application of the law. The court's decision underscores the importance of legal correctness and evidentiary support in disciplinary proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the stewards’ decision is set aside and a not guilty finding is substituted.

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.