Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Currie - [2022] QCATA 6

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Currie [2022] QCATA 6

PARTIES: QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(applicant/appellant)

v

BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL281-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR190-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

24 January 2022

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.       Leave to the appellant to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020.

2.       Appeal allowed in part.

3.       Decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020 set aside, so far as it related to Charge 1 against the respondent.

4.       In respect of Charge 1 substitute a decision that the respondent did breach Australian Rules of Racing 175(a) as alleged by the appellant in Charge 1.

5.       The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

6.       The parties are to advise the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal by email within fourteen days whether they require an oral hearing of the respondent’s review of the sanction imposed on Internal Review, or whether that review can be determined on the papers, and whether there is any application for costs.

7.       The appeal is adjourned to be dealt further in due course.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – JUDGE MISTAKEN OR MISLED – GENERALLY – where there was an error of law by the Tribunal below – where the reasoning of the learned Member was both unconvincing and unsatisfactory

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – GENERALLY – where it was alleged that the respondent engaged in improper actions in connection with racing in that the respondent sent text messages with respect to an intention to subject two horses to electronic apparatuses capable of affecting their performances – where the respondent argued that the reference to a “jigger” was made in jest or frustration – whether this was reasonable in the circumstances

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142, s 146, s 147.

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) s 246.

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Campbell v Queensland Building and Construtcion Commission [2021] QCATA 34
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194
Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319
Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA 38
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679
Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247
Shambayati v Commissioner of Police [2013] QCA 57
Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565

White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

S A McLeod QC instructed by the internal solicitor of the appellant

Respondent:

J Murdoch QC and S Favell instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is…

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 Currie 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: [2022] QCATA 6
Decision Date: 24 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Currie, the respondent faced allegations of improper conduct related to racing activities. Specifically, the respondent was accused of sending text messages indicating an intent to use electronic apparatuses on two horses, potentially affecting their performance. The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission sought to appeal a decision made by the Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal's reasoning was both unconvincing and unsatisfactory, and that there was an error of law present. The appeal centred on the interpretation of the respondent's text messages and the Tribunal's handling of the case.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's reference to a "jigger" in his text messages was made in jest or frustration, which he claimed was reasonable given the context. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Australian Rules of Racing, specifically Rule 175(a), and whether the Tribunal's discretion was properly exercised in relation to the respondent's conduct. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was based on a correct application of the law and whether there was any interference with the Tribunal's discretion.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its interpretation of the respondent's text messages and the application of the Australian Rules of Racing. The reasoning provided by the Tribunal was deemed unsatisfactory and unconvincing, leading to an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the Tribunal's decision regarding Charge 1 was set aside. The court substituted its own decision that the respondent did breach Rule 175(a) as alleged by the Commission. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was adjourned pending further instructions from the parties regarding the review of the sanction and potential costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to the appellant to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020.

2. Appeal allowed in part.

3. Decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020 set aside, so far as it related to Charge 1 against the respondent.

4. In respect of Charge 1 substitute a decision that the respondent did breach Australian Rules of Racing 175(a) as alleged by the appellant in Charge 1.

5. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

6. The parties are to advise the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal by email within fourteen days whether they require an oral hearing of the respondent’s review of the sanction imposed on Internal Review, or whether that review can be determined on the papers, and whether there is any application for costs.

7. The appeal is adjourned to be dealt further in due course.

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.

CITATION:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Currie [2022] QCATA 6
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION
(applicant/appellant)
v
BENJAMIN MARK CURRIE
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL281-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR190-19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	24 January 2022
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Judicial Member D J McGill SC
ORDERS:	1. Leave to the appellant to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020. 2. Appeal allowed in part. 3. Decision of the Tribunal of 19 August 2020 set aside, so far as it related to Charge 1 against the respondent. 4. In respect of Charge 1 substitute a decision that the respondent did breach Australian Rules of Racing 175(a) as alleged by the appellant in Charge 1. 5. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. 6. The parties are to advise the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal by email within fourteen days whether they require an oral hearing of the respondent’s review of the sanction imposed on Internal Review, or whether that review can be determined on the papers, and whether there is any application for costs. 7. The appeal is adjourned to be dealt further in due course.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – JUDGE MISTAKEN OR MISLED – GENERALLY – where there was an error of law by the Tribunal below – where the reasoning of the learned Member was both unconvincing and unsatisfactory ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – GENERALLY – where it was alleged that the respondent engaged in improper actions in connection with racing in that the respondent sent text messages with respect to an intention to subject two horses to electronic apparatuses capable of affecting their performances – where the respondent argued that the reference to a “jigger” was made in jest or frustration – whether this was reasonable in the circumstances Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142, s 146, s 147. Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) s 246. Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Campbell v Queensland Building and Construtcion Commission [2021] QCATA 34 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319 Crime and Corruption Commission v Lee [2019] QCATA 38 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 Shambayati v Commissioner of Police [2013] QCA 57 Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	S A McLeod QC instructed by the internal solicitor of the appellant
Respondent:	J Murdoch QC and S Favell instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors