Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Belford - [2017] QCATA 42

CITATION:

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Belford [2017] QCATA 42

PARTIES:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Appellant)
v
Kenneth John Belford (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL251-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice D G Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board dated 28 June 2016 is set aside.

3. Kenneth John Belford is guilty of breaches of Rule 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules.

4. Kenneth John Belford is disqualified from holding a licence as a trainer and/or driver for a period of six months. Any time during which Mr Belford has already served a period of disqualification shall count towards the equivalent period of disqualification.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – ERROR OF LAW – where appeal against Racing Board decision to set aside the conviction imposed by the Racing Stewards – whether Decision Making Policy subject of the charges was effective at the time of the charges – whether regard should be had to the measure of uncertainty in A-sample and B-sample certificates – whether the measure of uncertainty of the A-sample and B-sample was an appropriate consideration in the totality of the evidence – whether failure to consider the measure of uncertainty was an error of law and ground of appeal

APPEAL – RACING – HARNESS RACING – Australian Harness Racing Rules – standard of proof required to establish breach of Rules – whether civil standard or criminal standard – whether the measure of uncertainty of A-sample and B-sample satisfies the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – whether the measure of uncertainty justifies the finding that the respondent presented a horse with a prohibited substance – whether conviction should be reinstated – whether period of disqualification appropriate

Australian Harness Racing Rules 1999 rr 188A, 190, 191
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142
Racing Act 2002 (Qld) ss 79, 80, 81, 83, 103, 155

Abbott v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QSC 162
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Dixon v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 331
Lambourn v Racing Queensland Limited [2013] QCAT 699
Lawlor v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 255
Manzelmann v Racing Queensland Limited [2013] QCAT 45
Ricky John Gordon t/a Ricky Gordon Racing Stables v Racing Queensland Limited [2013] QCAT 302
Riley v Racing Victoria Ltd [2015] VSC 527
Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168
Waltisbuhl v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 204

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Applicant:	G R Rice of Queens Counsel instructed by Lander & Rogers
Respondent:	J E Murdoch of Queens Counsel instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (‘QRIC’) seeks to appeal a decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board which sets aside the Stewards’ decision to convict and penalise Mr Kenneth Belford for a breach of Australian Harness Racing Rules (‘AHRR’) rule 190(1).

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 Racing Integrity Commission v Belford 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: [2017] QCATA 42
Decision Date: 27 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a challenge by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission against a decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board, which had set aside a conviction imposed by the Racing Stewards against Kenneth John Belford. Belford had been charged with breaches of the Australian Harness Racing Rules, specifically under Rule 190(1), which pertains to the presence of a prohibited substance in a horse. The Racing Stewards found Belford guilty, but this decision was later overturned by the Racing Disciplinary Board.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Decision Making Policy applicable to the charges was effective at the time the charges were laid, and whether the Racing Disciplinary Board should have considered the measure of uncertainty in the A-sample and B-sample certificates as part of the totality of the evidence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the failure to consider the measure of uncertainty constituted an error of law, which would provide a ground for the appeal. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard of proof in harness racing cases and whether the measure of uncertainty satisfied the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that there was an error of law in the Racing Disciplinary Board's decision, as it failed to consider the measure of uncertainty in the A-sample and B-sample certificates, which was an appropriate consideration in the context of the evidence presented. This failure constituted a material error of law. The court also determined that the measure of uncertainty did not undermine the conclusion that Belford had presented a horse with a prohibited substance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board was set aside, and Belford was found guilty of the charges under Rule 190(1). The court further ordered that Belford be disqualified from holding a licence as a trainer and/or driver for a period of six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board dated 28 June 2016 is set aside.

3. Kenneth John Belford is guilty of breaches of Rule 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules.

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.