Piper v Queensland Racing Ltd
[2011] QCAT 157
•13 April 2011
| CITATION: | Piper v Queensland Racing Ltd [2011] QCAT 157 |
| PARTIES: | Jana Rose Piper |
| v | |
| Queensland Racing Limited |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR002-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 28 March 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr Brock Miller, Member Ms Susan Gardiner, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 13 April 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application to review is allowed. 2. The decision of Racing Queensland made on 4 January 2011 is set aside. 3. The applicant’s licence to ride in races is suspended for four months effective as and from 3 February 2011. 4. The applicant is fined $500.00 for a breach of AR 175(j) on 2 December 2010. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Apprentice jockey providing false information against another jockey – retracted at steward’s hearing – improper or insulting conduct during inquiry – swearing at stewards Racing Act 2002 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr M Tutt |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr A J Orchard |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Applicant in this matter, Jana Rose Piper, was an apprentice jockey who was found guilty of a charge under AR175(gg) of the Australian Rules of Racing. The Stewards in their deliberations by way of inquiry into allegations made by Miss Piper as to the illegal betting transactions undertaken by jockey David Daniel Griffin, particularised the charge in the following manner:
“On 10 September 2010 during an interview conducted with Racing Queensland Limited Investigative Stewards, Ms Jana Piper did make false statements pertaining to licensed jockey Daniel Griffin placing bets on thoroughbred racing and requesting Ms Piper place bets on his behalf on thoroughbred racing using a Unitab account in Ms Piper’s name.”
Further, Stewards levelled a charge under AR175(j) against Ms Piper the particulars being:
“Apprentice Jana Piper did exhibit insulting behaviour towards the Chief Steward during the Stewards Inquiry held on 2 December 2010 by referring to the Chief Steward as an “arsehole” and further when requested to provide medical evidence to assist the Inquiry, Ms Piper acting improperly by using inappropriate language.”
The charges resulted from what appears to be an attempt by Ms Piper to exact revenge against Daniel Griffin who had, prior to the imposition of the charges, been her partner in a de facto relationship, which relationship had apparently broken down.
It is common knowledge that the allegation in respect to Daniel Griffin was made to the Chief Steward and that as a result, the investigating Stewards, appointed by the Chief Steward, attended her residence at Ashmore and questioned her in respect to what she knew of the subject of the betting activities of Griffin. A Transcript of that interview was made 10 September 2010.
The Transcript shows Ms Piper going to great lengths to identify that Griffin placed numerous bets by way of computer access using Ms Piper’s account with the TAB such that in the following three months further significant investigation was undertaken into that activity.
On Thursday, 2 December 2010, a formal Inquiry was opened into the said allegations at which both apprentice Piper and jockey Griffin were present. The Transcript of the interview with apprentice Piper was tendered and marked Exhibit 7 and when queried as to whether that Transcript was a true account of that interview, apprentice Piper responded “of the interview, yes”.
On page 4 of the Transcript of Proceedings on 2 December 2010, when asked whether apprentice Piper stood by those allegations made by her against jockey Griffin, she replied in the negative whereupon she was referred to two rules of racing that might impose penalties upon a person who makes any false or misleading statement or declaration. It becomes apparent from a review of the Transcript that the situation of bad blood between apprentice Piper and jockey Griffin was exacerbated by allegations made against apprentice Piper by Griffin in respect to possible criminal activity against his property and that both Piper and Griffin were intent on, at one stage, trying to destroy both the character and reputation of each other. The unfortunate occurrence or sequel to that so-called attempt was that the Stewards of Queensland Racing were compelled to embark upon a protracted and expensive investigation into the allegations raised by apprentice Piper.
It is not of significance to embark upon a thorough investigation of what was revealed in those investigations. What is quite apparent however is that once the Stewards were informed by Ms Piper that she was acting improperly and wrongly and had no proof to support her earlier allegations and wished to retract same, the Stewards of Queensland Racing still sought to continue investigations and expended a further sum to determine the truth of the matter. One can hypothesise as to various reasons as to why Piper might withdraw the allegations even had they been factual, but the Review with which this Tribunal is now concerned relates purely to the penalty that has been imposed upon apprentice Piper for the initial false complaint. During the course of an application for a stay of the determination that her licence be suspended, Ms Piper’s lawyers, Butler McDermott submitted by letter of 6 January that Ms Piper should be allowed to earn an income as an apprentice jockey and continue riding until the matter was properly determined by this Tribunal.
The proposal was considered favourably by the Tribunal and Ms Piper was allowed to continue riding pending a determination. That attitude has to be commended primarily because this review was not listed for hearing until Monday 28 March, almost three months after the penalty was imposed.
[10] During the review, Mr Tutt on behalf of Ms Piper, was vocal in his submission that Ms Piper’s only possible penalty should be that of a pecuniary nature because she had gone to great lengths at the outset of the Inquiry on 2 December 2010 to confess to Stewards that what she had told them during the course of her interview in September 2010 was false and misleading and was fabricated. This Tribunal finds considerable merit in the submission by Mr Tutt and would, were it not for other more pressing circumstances, be likely to agree that a fine might well have been an appropriate penalty. We say this because what Mr Tutt seems not to have taken into account is the fact that Racing Stewards were presented with a statement which subsequently became effectively worthless for the purposes of any future prosecution of illegal activity, but before such final identification could be made, there was significant expense undertaken to determine whether what had been alleged was factual. It is this significant expense and the fact that Ms Piper waited until 2 December to retract her statement made some three months previously which persuades this Tribunal that a mere pecuniary penalty is not appropriate in all the circumstances.
[11] There appears no doubt to the members of this Tribunal that Ms Piper thoroughly intended to cause as much personal harm to her former partner as could be possible. She did, appropriately one might suggest, withdraw the false accusations once formality of the Inquiry was instigated but certain damage had already been done. It is therefore a matter for this Tribunal to identify whether that damage was such as to warrant a suspension of the order of twelve months of Ms Piper’s licence or whether there should be some reduction therein.
[12] Both parties went to great lengths to supply evidence of similar fact penalty situations with the majority being relative to a substantial financial penalty. The members of the Tribunal have considered all of the penalties previously imposed but have identified that it would be appropriate for a suspension of Ms Piper’s licence to be of a sufficiently long period as to warrant a significant warning to others who might wish to act likewise to the detriment of other people’s livelihood. For that reason, this Tribunal imposes a penalty of four months’ suspension effective as and from 3 February 2011, a date on which Ms Piper’s licence to ride in races was withdrawn pending her satisfactory completion of certain further appropriate testing by a panel of Stewards.
[13] During the course of the Inquiry on 2 December, Ms Piper became also the subject of a charge under AR175(j) to which reference is made at the outset in these Reasons. The Transcript identifies succinctly that Ms Piper raised the suggestion that she suffered from an illness that would ordinarily preclude her being entitled to ride in races if that illness had been properly diagnosed. A serious argument ensued between Ms Piper and the Chief Steward when language of an insulting nature was directed to that Steward. It seems to this Tribunal that the Chief Steward frankly overreacted when Stewards exercised their rights under Australian Rule 81(2) and determined that because she had alleged herself to be suffering from Bipolar Disorder, it was ordered that she would be unable to mount a horse in any race, official trial, jump-out, track work or anywhere else. This Tribunal is of the opinion that, had the Chief Steward acted appropriately and sought further information from Ms Piper as to the condition from which she suggested she suffered then no bad language or inappropriate conduct would have been resultant. The Chief Steward should, in our opinion, have been more prepared to handle the situation with aplomb in all of the circumstances and should have realised that Ms Piper was extremely agitated and upset over what had transpired during the early stages of the Inquiry.
[14] The penalty of $4,000.00 that was imposed against her for the behaviour and use of bad language is in the opinion of this Tribunal significantly too high. It is not something that the Tribunal condones but there should have been more serious consideration given to the overall consequences. The Review of that penalty is therefore upheld and in lieu of the fine of $4,000.00, a fine of $500.00 is imposed.
0
1