Piper v Queensland Racing Ltd - [2011] QCAT 157

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
Australian Rules of Racing, AR175(gg) and (j)

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…

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 Piper v Queensland Racing Ltd 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: [2011] QCAT 157
Decision Date: 13 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Piper v Queensland Racing Ltd, the applicant, an apprentice jockey, was subject to disciplinary proceedings brought by the respondent, Queensland Racing Ltd, following a race held on 2 December 2010. The applicant was alleged to have provided false information in his post-race report, which was later retracted at the stewards' hearing. Additionally, the applicant was accused of improper or insulting conduct during the inquiry and of swearing at the stewards. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the decision of Racing Queensland, which had imposed a penalty on the applicant.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's conduct warranted a penalty, given the retraction of the false information and the mitigating circumstances presented. The Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's actions constituted a breach of the relevant racing rules and, if so, what penalty was appropriate. The Tribunal also needed to weigh the evidence presented regarding the applicant's conduct during the inquiry and the stewards' handling of the matter.

In delivering its decision, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's remorse and the fact that he had retracted the false information provided. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct during the inquiry, including swearing at the stewards, was inappropriate and warranted a penalty. The Tribunal set aside the decision of Racing Queensland and imposed a four-month suspension of the applicant's licence to ride in races, effective from 3 February 2011, and a fine of $500 for breaching AR 175(j) on 2 December 2010.

The Tribunal's orders included allowing the application to review, setting aside the decision of Racing Queensland, suspending the applicant's licence to ride in races for four months from 3 February 2011, and fining the applicant $500 for breaching AR 175(j) on 2 December 2010. These orders reflected the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's conduct and the need to uphold the integrity of racing while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.