Legal Research
Cases
Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner

Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner

Case [2017] VSC 693 21 November 2017

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Apparent Bias

Natural Justice

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 00476

DAVID MOODIE	Plaintiff
v
RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bell J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 & 8 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 693

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – natural justice – apparent bias – application for declaration of breach – horse owner and director of Board of Racing Victoria allegedly disclosed information to horse trainers subject to cobalt investigation that their horses had tested positive – on referral from Racing Integrity Council of Racing Victoria, Racing Integrity Commissioner investigated allegations and made findings of misconduct against him – after delivery of confidential report to Racing Victoria, Commissioner unilaterally published media release disclosing findings and details of investigation – whether gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – whether fair-minded lay observer could reasonably conclude that Commissioner might not have fairly and impartially conducted investigation and made findings – standard of impartiality expected of persons exercising statutory investigative functions – Commissioner in position of accuser (in effect) and investigator and determiner (in fact) – relevance of subsequent conduct and statements when assessing whether a reasonable apprehension of bias can be maintained in respect of concluded proceeding or decision – Racing Act 1958 (Vic) ss 37A–37E, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) O 56.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	Mr S Wilson QC with Ms K Foley	Formerly Joy Popovska & Associates; currently Findlay Arthur Phillips
For the defendant	Ms M Richards SC with Mr J Bayly	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION
Application for judicial review

The Racing Integrity Commissioner was obliged to exercise the investigative and like functions in pt 1A of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) in respect of certain allegations about David Moodie, a racehorse owner and former director of Racing Victoria, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, which is to say, fairly and impartially. That rule is breached where a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that, in exercising those functions, the Commissioner might have been biased. In this application for judicial review for declaratory and other relief, Mr Moodie contends that the Commissioner breached this rule when investigating, and making adverse findings in relation to, the matters concerning him.

Investigation and report of Commissioner

The circumstances were that stewards were investigating two trainers in relation to the alleged prohibited administration of cobalt to racehorses. A journalist received leaked information about the investigation, which he brought to the attention of Mr Moodie. Mr Moodie spoke with a third trainer, Peter Moody (no relation and note the different spelling), who was a trainer of Mr Moodie’s racehorses, about the information. When members of the Racing Victoria Integrity Council, which is part of Racing Victoria, were later informed of the conversation between Mr Moodie and Mr Moody, two members…

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.

Continue reading Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner

Details

AGLC: Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner [2017] VSC 693
Case: [2017] VSC 693
Decision Date: 21 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moodie v Racing Integrity Commissioner, the respondent, a horse owner and director of the Board of Racing Victoria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Racing Integrity Commissioner. The dispute centred around allegations that the respondent disclosed information to horse trainers whose horses had tested positive for cobalt during an investigation. The Racing Integrity Commissioner investigated these allegations and found the respondent guilty of misconduct. However, the Commissioner unilaterally published a media release disclosing the findings and details of the investigation, which the respondent argued gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the Commissioner's actions breached the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for impartiality. The court had to assess whether the Commissioner's disclosure of the investigation's findings could reasonably lead a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Commissioner might not have fairly and impartially conducted the investigation and made the findings. The court also needed to consider the standard of impartiality expected from persons exercising statutory investigative functions, as well as the relevance of the Commissioner's subsequent conduct and statements when assessing whether a reasonable apprehension of bias could be maintained in respect of the concluded proceeding or decision.

The court found that the Commissioner's disclosure of the investigation's findings in a media release, particularly given the Commissioner's dual role as investigator and determiner, did give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that a fair-minded lay observer could reasonably conclude that the Commissioner might not have fairly and impartially conducted the investigation and made the findings. The court further noted that the Commissioner's subsequent conduct and statements did not alleviate this apprehension. Consequently, the court concluded that the Commissioner's actions breached the principles of natural justice.

The court issued a declaration that the Commissioner's conduct in disclosing the findings of the investigation in a media release was a breach of natural justice and quashed the decision of the Commissioner.

Orders