Miggins v Racing Queensland Limited
[2013] QCAT 230
| CITATION: | Miggins v Racing Queensland Limited [2013] QCAT 230 |
| PARTIES: | Gareth Miggins (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR043-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 March 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Andrew McLean Williams, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 May 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The decision of Racing Queensland made on 18 February 2013 to suspend the Applicant for a period of 12 months is set aside and in lieu thereof a penalty of four months suspension is imposed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | RACING – Appeal against penalty – where greyhound tested positive to amphetamine in circumstances where amphetamine a controlled substance – whether penalty imposed for a breach of Greyhound Racing Rule 83(2)(d) is excessive. Greyhound Racing Rule 83(2)(d) Fuller v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 685 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Scott Neaves. |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Zachary Bryson. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Applicant, Mr Gareth Miggins, is a greyhound trainer who operates from central Queensland. Mr Miggins who has a full-time job working as a supervisor at the Callide Power Station, at Biloela, has participated in the Queensland greyhound racing industry part-time for only a relatively short time having commenced in the industry approximately 18 months prior to the events that are now the subject of these proceedings. Mr Miggins wife, Mrs Janine Miggins, as well as her parents, are all involved in greyhound racing, as well. Mr and Mrs Miggins reside at premises owned by Janine’s parents, and train their own greyhounds, as well as those put into their care by training clientele at those premises.
On 19 February 2013 Mr Miggins commenced an application before QCAT seeking to review a decision made by a Stewards Inquiry on 18 February 2013 by which his greyhound trainer’s licence was suspended for a period of twelve (12) months, after one of his greyhounds, Sheza Piranha, was found to have amphetamine in its urine when at a race meeting held at the Rockhampton Greyhound Racing Club on 7 November 2012. As may be expected, amphetamine is just one of many prohibited substances under the Rules of Greyhound Racing, given that it is a compound known to affect a greyhound, by its action on the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, and respiratory system in canines.
Because Sheza Piranha returned a positive test for amphetamine, Mr Miggins was charged with his being in breach of Rule 83 of the rules of greyhound racing, known in the industry as ‘the Presentation Rule’, which requires that an owner, trainer, or other person in charge of a greyhound must present that greyhound whilst free of any prohibited substance. The rule is one of strict liability. That is to say, once there is evidence of a greyhound having been presented with a prohibited substance in its system, a breach of is made out, quite irrespective of the role in that by the trainer, the owner, or other relevant person charged with the breach.
In this case there is no dispute that Sheza Piranha was found to have amphetamine in its system, given the insurmountable fact of the certificates of analysis, and certificates of external analysis for confirmation, that were produced before the Stewards Inquiry on 18 February 2013. These certificates became, respectively, exhibits 4 and 14 in those proceedings.
At the original Stewards Inquiry - and again before these review proceedings - Mr Miggins very strenuously denied any involvement in administering amphetamines to Sheza Piranha, and expressed his absolute surprise and dismay that this had occurred. Mr Miggins then postulated that he had become the unwitting victim of sabotage, which he felt was a possibility, given poor physical security in the kennelling areas at Rockhampton, and various petty jealousies within the industry. I accept that there is no evidence of any deliberate breach of the rules of greyhound racing by Mr Miggins, and it is certainly possible that Mr Miggins has been sabotaged by others. Unfortunately, Rule 83 is a rule of strict liability.
After hearing various submissions on the question of penalty, Mr Miggins was given a twelve-month suspension by the Stewards. I am informed by Mr Neaves that this is presently the longest suspension handed down by Racing Queensland Limited in the last five years. Comparison with other penalties also indicates that the penalty now under review represents an exponential increase in the period of suspension.
In giving that suspension, regard was apparently had by the Stewards to Mr Miggins’ hitherto unblemished record during his short period in the greyhound industry, as well as to a number of very positive character references, and the fact of his having made a significant financial investment in order to get into the industry, and the economic effect that the suspension would have on him, and his wife. The stewards also stated that they had regard to previous penalties imposed in Queensland, as well as those imposed in other states.
As becomes clear from a review of the transcript of proceedings, the Stewards were particularly influenced by the New South Wales penalty grading system, and by an expressed need to send a clear message of deterrence to others in the industry, and to the public at large in relation to the broader issue of ‘drugs in sport’. Yet, it is to be noted that the New South Wales system, or at least one similar to it, has not been introduced in Queensland, and nor is there evidence of any analysis having been undertaken by the respondent, in consultation with industry of the likely deterrent effect of any significantly increased regime of penalties, including increased periods of suspension.
This is by no means the first case considered by QCAT where, without sufficient explanation, the penalty imposed by stewards has been appreciably higher than the antecedents would suggest is either necessary or appropriate. As has been explained by this Tribunal in a number of recent cases there is no warrant for the stewards arbitrarily attempting to deliver into Queensland penalties consistent with those in the southern states, particularly without consultation with the industry. As was identified in Fuller v Racing Queensland Limited[1] at [4]-[8], there is just no evidence that the stewards have undertaken any analysis of whether or not the existing penalties in Queensland are acting as a deterrent, and nor is has been any industry review of the appropriateness of the current penalties regime. Given the small number of cases prosecuted in Queensland (and the very infrequency of them) it is not clear that the proclaimed need for even greater deterrence in fact warrants any change, at all. Absent proper inquiry (and evidence identified thereby), there is no good reason why the penalty imposed in this case should be increased exponentially beyond that which has imposed in recent comparable cases.
[1] [2011] QCAT 685.
Consistent with what has been found by this Tribunal in both Taylor & Anor v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2)[2] and Fuller v Racing Queensland Limited[3] an appropriate penalty in circumstances such as those cases, which I regard as being comparable to Mr Miggins circumstances was found to require that the applicant be suspended for a period of four months. By parity of reasoning that tariff of penalty is appropriate in the case before me.
[2] [2011] QCAT 577.
[3] [2011] QCAT 685.
Accordingly I determine that the decision made by Racing Queensland Limited on 18 February 2013 should now be set aside, and in lieu thereof Mr Gareth Miggins should be suspended for a period of four months, from 18 February 2013.
0
2
0