Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott - [2015] QCATA 92

CITATION:

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott [2015] QCATA 92

PARTIES:	Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Justin Abbott (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL552 -14

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Thomas, President
Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – RACING – HARNESS RACING – Australian Harness Racing Rules – where racing trainer laid off – where trainer made comments to investigating stewards resulted on charge of intimidatory behaviour – where significant penalty applied by Stewards – where Disciplinary Board overturned Stewards’ decision on intimidatory behaviour – where Disciplinary Board reduced penalties from cumulative to concurrent – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Australian Harness Racing Rules ss 181, 187(5), 247, 257

Briginshaw v Briginshaw(1938) 60 CLR 336
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
Hooper v Racing Queensland [2012] QCATA 226

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

D. Kent QC, A.C. Freeman with him, instructed by Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board

RESPONDENT:

J. Murdoch QC, S. Farrell with him, instructed by Gabriel Ruddy and Garrett Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 10 March 2014, Foldem was the odds on favourite in race 6 at Albion Park. Justin Abbott was Foldem’s registered trainer. Foldem was supposed to run with block eyes but, instead, ran with an open bridle. The Stewards had not approved this change of gear. Disappointingly, Foldem did not win.
Foldem ran again a week later. This time Foldem wore a hood without the Stewards’ approval. It won, at reasonable odds.
The Stewards conducted an inquiry into Foldem’s performance. They discovered that Mr Abbott had laid Foldem for the 10 March race; that is, Mr Abbott bet that Foldem would not win that race. They discovered that Mr Abbott had backed Foldem to win the second race. The Stewards also discovered that Mr Abbott had laid two other horses that he trained, picking up money both times.
As part of the inquiry, three Stewards visited Mr Abbott. Mr Abbott admitted he laid Foldem and the other horses. At the end of the visit, Mr Abbott made some comments to the Stewards that they interpreted as intimidatory and an attempt to influence the result of the investigation.
The Stewards brought eight charges against Mr Abbott. One charge related to failing to notify Stewards of an intention to adopt different race tactics. Two charges related to unauthorised gear changes. Three charges related to laying bets. Two charges related to Mr Abbott’s comments to the Stewards.
Mr Abbott pleaded guilty to one charge of unauthorised gear change and three charges of laying bets. He did not plead guilty to the two charges that related to his comments. The Stewards found Mr Abbott guilty on all charges. The cumulative effect of the penalties imposed meant that Mr Abbott was disqualified from racing for five years.
Mr Abbott appealed to the Racing Disciplinary Board. The Disciplinary Board confirmed convictions on five of…

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 Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott 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: [2015] QCATA 92
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Queensland Racing Tribunal, which had overturned a penalty imposed by the stewards on a racing trainer, Mr Abbott, for intimidatory behaviour. Mr Abbott had been charged by the stewards after he made comments to the stewards investigating him for laying off his horse during a race. The stewards imposed a substantial penalty on Mr Abbott, which included a fine and a suspension from racing. However, the Disciplinary Board overturned the stewards' decision on the intimidatory behaviour charge and reduced the penalties from cumulative to concurrent. The Board sought leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in overturning the stewards' decision on the intimidatory behaviour charge.
The central issue for the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in overturning the stewards' decision on the intimidatory behaviour charge and in reducing the penalties from cumulative to concurrent. The court had to consider the applicable rules and principles governing the imposition of penalties by stewards and the review of those penalties by the Disciplinary Board. The court also had to consider the scope of the Tribunal's powers in reviewing the Board's decisions.
The court held that the Tribunal had not erred in overturning the stewards' decision on the intimidatory behaviour charge. The court found that the evidence did not support the charge and that the Board was correct to overturn the decision. The court also held that the Board had the discretion to reduce the penalties from cumulative to concurrent, and that this was a reasonable exercise of that discretion. The court found that the Board had considered all relevant factors and had not erred in law in reducing the penalties. Accordingly, the Board's decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

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.