Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Thomas - [2016] QCATA 82

CITATION:

Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Thomas [2016] QCATA 82

PARTIES:	Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board (Applicant/Appellant)
V
John Thomas (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:		APL344-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Carmody

DELIVERED ON:

17 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – GAMING AND LIQUOR – RACING – RACING COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS – FUNCTIONS AND POWERS GENERALLY – Where the respondent was a licensed racehorse trainer – where a prohibited substance was found in the system of a horse he was in charge of – where stewards “convicted” or penalised the respondent – where the Racing Disciplinary Board (RDB) overturned the conviction and penalty – contractual or consensual nature of the Australian Rules of Racing – the scope of strict liability in the context of sporting rules – meaning of the words “may be penalised” – whether the respondent was automatically liable to sanction for a presentation offence irrespective of the circumstances – whether the RDB misconstrued the rule in question or made factual findings based on no or insufficient evidence

Australian Rules of Racing articles 2, 4, 7, 8, 177, 17, 196

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 36, 289

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 9.2, 12.5

Racing Act 2002 (Qld) ss 9AF, 149ZE(3), 149ZX(1)(b), 155(2), (5)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1999 (Qld) s 4

Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (No. 2) (1992) 29 NSWLR 497

Bita v Racing Queensland [2014] QCAT 460

Bonsor v Musician’s Union [1945] 1 Ch 479

Caddigan v Grigg [1958] NZLR 708

R v City of Sault Ste Marie (1978) 85 DLR (3d) 161

R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club; ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909

Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 127 CLR 106

Gasser v Stinson [1996] EWCA Civ (20 December 1996)

Harmer v Grace [1980] Qd R 395

Harper v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia (1995) 12 WAR 337

Hafza v Director General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444

He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Leach v R (2007) 230 CLR 1

Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329

Lewis v Jones 4 B.&C. 506

Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] 1 All ER 223

MacQueen v Frackleton (1909) 8 CLR 673

MacDougall v Paterson (1880) 5 App Cas 214

Maynard v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia (1994) 11 WAR 1

Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19

Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619

Proudman v Dayman [1941] 67 CLR 536

Rogerson v Racing New South Wales (Sydney, Monday 25 June, 2007)

Traverner’s Case (1681) T Raym 446

Tucker v Auckland Racing Club [1956] NZLR 1

R…

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 Thomas 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: [2016] QCATA 82
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board and Thomas, a licensed racehorse trainer. The dispute arose after a prohibited substance was detected in a horse under Thomas's care, leading to a conviction and penalty imposed by the stewards. The Racing Disciplinary Board subsequently overturned the conviction and penalty. The crux of the legal issues before the court was the interpretation of the Australian Rules of Racing, particularly concerning the strict liability for presentation offences and the meaning of the phrase "may be penalised." The court had to determine whether Thomas was automatically liable to sanction regardless of circumstances and whether the Racing Disciplinary Board had misinterpreted the rule or made findings without sufficient evidence.

The court examined the contractual nature of the Australian Rules of Racing and the principle of strict liability within the context of sporting rules. It held that the rules are not contractual in nature and that strict liability applies in certain situations. However, the court found that the Racing Disciplinary Board did not misinterpret the rule in question. The Board correctly interpreted the rule to mean that the respondent "may be penalised" but was not automatically liable to sanction. The court also found that the Racing Disciplinary Board's decision was based on sufficient evidence and that it did not make any factual findings without a proper basis.

Based on the above, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Racing Disciplinary Board correctly interpreted the rules and did not misconstrue the evidence. The decision reinforces the principle that while strict liability may apply in certain circumstances, it does not automatically render a party liable to sanction without regard to the specific facts of the case. The court's decision underscores the importance of interpreting sporting rules in context and with regard to the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is 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.