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
Taylor & Anor v Racing Queensland Limited (No 2) [2011] QCAT 577
Wiggins v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 370

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…

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 Miggins v Racing Queensland Limited 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: [2013] QCAT 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gareth Miggins, a greyhound trainer from central Queensland, sought a review of a twelve-month suspension of his trainer's licence imposed by Racing Queensland Limited. The suspension was imposed after one of his greyhounds, Sheza Piranha, tested positive for amphetamine, a prohibited substance under the Rules of Greyhound Racing. Mr Miggins denied any involvement in administering the amphetamine and suggested the possibility of sabotage. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the penalty was excessive.

The central legal issue was whether the twelve-month suspension imposed by Racing Queensland was disproportionate and unjust given Mr Miggins' unblemished record and the lack of evidence of his direct involvement in the administration of the prohibited substance. The tribunal also had to consider whether the stewards had appropriately assessed the deterrent effect of the penalty in light of the strict liability nature of Rule 83 and the absence of a comprehensive penalty review process in Queensland.

The tribunal found that the stewards had imposed an exponentially higher penalty than those in comparable cases without sufficient justification or analysis of the deterrent effect of such penalties in Queensland. The tribunal noted that the stewards had been influenced by penalty grading systems in New South Wales, which had not been adopted in Queensland, and that there was no evidence of any industry consultation on the appropriateness of the penalties. The tribunal determined that the penalty was excessive and set it aside, imposing a four-month suspension instead. This penalty aligned with those imposed in similar cases and was consistent with the tribunal's previous findings that penalties should not be increased arbitrarily without proper inquiry.

The tribunal set aside the twelve-month suspension imposed by Racing Queensland and imposed a four-month suspension on Mr Miggins, effective from 18 February 2013.

Orders