Piper v Racing Queensland Ltd

[2011] QCAT 159

CITATION: Piper v Racing Queensland Ltd [2011] QCAT 159

PARTIES:	Jana Rose Piper
v
Racing Queensland Limited

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR023-11

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: 5 May 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:     

1.    The application to review is dismissed.

2.    The decision of Racing Queensland made on 3 February 2011 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: 

Review by apprentice jockey – careless riding – unacceptable risk to safety – limited to riding trials until further training undertaken – review dismissed

Racing Act 2002
Australian Rules of Racing, AR92A(4)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr M Tutt
RESPONDENT:	Mr A J Orchard

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant, Jana Rose Piper, was an apprentice jockey whose licence to participate in races was suspended pending a review of her abilities in the industry.  On 3 February 2011, she had appeared before the Rider Review Panel in respect to Safety concerns with a number of Apprentice J. Piper’s rides in races which have resulted in careless riding charges being issued.  The Rider Review Panel consisted of Stewards of Racing Queensland and former well regarded and expert riders seconded to assist the panel in its investigations.

1. The Transcript of that Review identifies concerns raised by the members of the Panel as to Ms Piper’s fitness and suitability to retain the right to ride in races without further trials and education being both provided and undertaken.

1. The Outline of Submissions presented to this Tribunal on behalf of the Applicant and the Transcript confirmed that the Applicant was charged under AR92A(4) which stipulates:

“The Stewards may suspend or limit in any way a rider’s permission to ride in races if they find that any aspect of his race riding technique, method of practice may be a hazard to himself or other riders, or may be contrary to the requirements of horse welfare”.

This charge was levelled by the Chairman of the Rider Review Panel with the support of his fellow members.

1. The Applicant contends that no particulars were given by Stewards in support of this charge but referred to an exchange that occurred within the Transcript:

   “On the evidence we see before us today, we are of the view your riding does need some remedial action.  We are of the view that we wouldn’t be satisfied for you to race ride following the evidence that is before us, so we are of the mind to stand your permission to ride in races down until you can satisfy a Panel – and it would include members of this Panel – that you can ride to our satisfaction in official barrier trials.

   Also we feel that – we hear what you say in relation to the Training Department.  We will be referring your case back to the Training Department.  We feel that there should be some remedial action there.  They will have to source professionals to give you the correct advice to help with aspects of your riding technique and obviously not jeopardise the safety of other riders and obviously yourself.  It is OK to say you want to go for these runs, and it may not even cause interference to other riders, but if you bring yourself down it is a safety risk also.  That is where we are at at the moment”.

1. An Affidavit of Leonard Alick Maund was tendered during the course of this Review.  Mr Maund is employed by Racing Queensland as the Apprentice Training and Recruitment Officer and stipulates that he is responsible for overseeing the training and all other aspects of apprentice jockeys.  He had previously been a professional jockey and trainer.

1. Mr Maund identifies that on 15 March 2011, he attended barrier trials at the Gold Coast Turf Club.  He says that before the first trial he was approached by Apprentice Jockey Jana Piper who informed him that Gary Palmer was supposed to be reviewing her trials but that he had not turned up and she asked him to watch her rides.  He identified that he watched her ride in five trials and had no concerns with her riding. 

1. On 22 or 23 March, he says he was asked by Stipendiary Stewards to again review recent rides by Apprentice Piper with her in the company of Gary Palmer.  He attended the Review Meeting with those persons and confirmed that in his opinion “I am of the view that she is not yet ready to return to race riding but that with her ability she should be able to do so after she receives further consultation and counselling”.

1. The Applicant takes issue with the matters referred to by Mr Maund in that she does not, she says, know what type of consultation and counselling she should have to undertake.  The evidence before this Tribunal was not seriously challenged.  Both parties seemed to be of a similar mind however Ms Piper believes that she had been unfairly treated and that having her riding licence indefinitely suspended at the whim of the Stewards of Racing Queensland was inappropriate and not within the Rules of Racing.

1. As a result, she has sought the intervention of this Tribunal to remedy the position and return her riding licence.

[10]  This Tribunal is satisfied that the Rider Review Panel has properly and thoroughly investigated the riding abilities exhibited by Ms Piper in the past.  It is further satisfied that it is essential that riders do not place either themselves or their fellow jockeys in possible danger of harm.  It is not, in the opinion of this Tribunal, appropriate for this Tribunal to interfere when a review panel of peers has identified that the riding technique of the Applicant is in fact inadequate in all the circumstances.  It is essential that, for the betterment of racing in general, riders and particularly apprentice riders, be subjected to scrutiny by not only the Stewards of Racing Queensland but by peers of their own.

[11]  This Tribunal is of the view that Ms Piper’s energies would be better placed in completing her apprenticeship with the help and guidance of senior members of the racing industry.  It was apparent to the Tribunal that during the hearing, Ms Piper assured the Tribunal members that she had commenced that process recently and this Tribunal commends any steps she has taken in that regard.

[12]  It is the opinion of this Tribunal that this Review should be dismissed and that the determination of Stewards be affirmed.