Nicholls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2023] QCAT 107

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Nicholls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] QCAT 107

PARTIES:

TRACEY MAY NICHOLLS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR110-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kent

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, dated 13 April 2021, to impose a 12-month disqualification, with 3 months wholly suspended for 2 years, is confirmed.

2. The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – where greyhound trainer failed to present a dog free of a prohibited substances – where admitted failure to present a dog free of prohibited substances – where urine sample above the permitted threshold of a permanently prohibited substance – whether the appropriate penalty was disqualification or some lesser penalty

Greyhounds Australasia Rules, rule 83(2)(a)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018] QCAT

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146

Darrel Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCATA 125

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Scott [2019] QCATA 125

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Summary of events

Ms Nichols is a licensed greyhound trainer. She was the trainer of a greyhound called Seven Seas who competed in a race at Brisbane Greyhound Racing Club on 3 December 2020.
When Seven Seas was presented at the Brisbane Greyhound Racing Club to compete in Race One on 3 December 2020 a urine sample was taken from the animal. Subsequently upon analysis this was found to contain testosterone, the evidence of this was the presence of 5-androstane-3α, 17β-diol of 100ng/ml, more than the prescribed threshold.
Ms Nicholls was charged with a breach of Greyhounds Australasia Rules (GAR) (then) rule 83(2)(a) (the Rules),[1] which reads:
(2) The owner, trainer, or person in charge of a greyhound -
(a)nominated to compete in an Event;
…
shallpresent the greyhound free of any prohibited substance.
[1]The Greyhounds Australasia Rules were updated on 1 May 2022, the relevant rule is now 141(1)(a).
A breach of Rule 190 is a strict liability offence.[2]
[2]The Greyhounds Australasia Rule 83(3).
The particulars of Ms Nicholl’s charge were[3] “that Seven Seas, of which Ms Nicholls was the registered trainer at the relevant time, was on 3 December 2020, presented at the Brisbane Greyhound Racing Club to compete in race 1 and a urine sample collected from Seven Seas was found upon analysis to contain testosterone, as evidenced by the presence of, above the prescribed threshold 5-androstane-3α, 17β-diol of 100ng/ml.
[3]Section 21(2) material, p 45 at 11-17.

Ms Nicholl’s entered a plea of guilty to the charge and the Stewards imposed a penalty of 12 months disqualification of Ms Nicholls’s licence, with 3 months of the disqualification suspended for…

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 Nicholls 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: [2023] QCAT 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tracey May Nicholls, a licensed greyhound trainer, contested the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission's (QRIC) decision to impose a 12-month disqualification on her, with 3 months suspended for 2 years, for presenting a greyhound with a prohibited substance in its system. The central legal issue was whether the penalty imposed was appropriate. The Tribunal had to consider the seriousness of the breach, its relevance to the legislation's purposes, and the appropriate penalty in light of similar cases.

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by both parties. Ms Nicholls argued that she had no history of similar offences, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and the penalty imposed would cause financial hardship. QRIC, on the other hand, emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the racing industry and ensuring the welfare of animals involved in the industry. The Tribunal also considered the precedents for such breaches in the greyhound industry, which establish lengthy periods of disqualification as the appropriate penalty.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed by QRIC was appropriate. The Tribunal accepted that the presence of a permanently prohibited substance in a greyhound's system was a serious breach, and the penalty imposed aligned with similar cases in which trainers had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had no prior history of such offences. The Tribunal also found that the financial hardship claimed by Ms Nicholls was not a relevant consideration, as she had been able to continue training greyhounds due to a stay of the QRIC decision.

The Tribunal confirmed the QRIC decision to impose a 12-month disqualification, with 3 months suspended for 2 years, and dismissed Ms Nicholls' application for review. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed was appropriate given the seriousness of the breach, its relevance to the purposes of the legislation, and the precedents for similar breaches in the greyhound industry.

Orders