Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale - [2017] QCATA 46

CITATION:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Vale [2017] QCATA 46
PARTIES:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Applicant)
v
Ricky Vale (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL213-16
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice D G Thomas, President
DELIVERED ON:	3 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – DISQUALIFICATIONS – OF OWNER TRAINER OR JOCKEY – where respondent thoroughbred trainer – where respondent responded to request from Racing Steward with outburst of swearing and insults – where guilty plea to breach of Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 – where Stewards Inquiry imposed disqualification of 18 months – where disqualification set aside on appeal to Racing Disciplinary Board and substituted with 6 month suspension – whether error of law in decision of Racing Disciplinary Board – whether erroneous allegation of breach of natural justice on part of Stewards Inquiry taken into account by Racing Disciplinary Board – whether penalty imposed by Racing Disciplinary Board manifestly inadequate Australian Rules of Racing r 175 Auld v Queensland Racing Limited [2013] QCAT 446 Dickson, G v Queensland Racing [2005] QRAT 021 Hooper v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 346 Katsidis, S v Queensland Racing [2007] QRAT 001 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Piper v Queensland Racing Limited [2011] QCAT 157 Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Abbott [2015] QCATA 92
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	A Forbes of Lander & Rogers for the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
RESPONDENT:	TA Ryan of Counsel instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers for Mr Vale

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Ricky Vale is a trainer of thoroughbred horses. He presented horses for racing at Callaghan Park Racecourse in Rockhampton on 8 April 2016.
After Race 7, Matthew Henderson, the starter at Callaghan Park, approached Mr Vale’s strapper to obtain a sample from Prince Dan, a horse trained by Mr Vale. Mr Vale and Mr Henderson had a conversation:
Mr Henderson identified the horse and Mr Vale’s strapper, Rebecca Asse-Saunders. Mr Henderson then approached Ms Asse-Saunders, who confirmed that the horse was indeed ‘Prince Dan’, but asked that he wait until Mr Vale returned, so that she could let him know.
Mr Vale then came up to Mr Henderson and asked “who wants to swab the horse?”, to which Mr Henderson replied “Mr Collins, Chairman of Stewards”. Mr Vale asked “what the fuck for?”, to which Mr Henderson replied “I don’t know, I’m just doing what I was told”.[1]
[1]Applicant’s Submissions, 4 October 2016, paragraphs 8 – 9.
Mr Vale left Mr Henderson and approached the Stewards. The following conversation occurred:[2]
[2]Ibid, paragraph 10.
MR VALE: What do you want to swab that horse for? It got beat fuckin’ 10 lengths.
…
MR VALE: What, you want to just be a smart-arse to me and stir me up every fuckin’ time?
…
MR VALE: Smart arse cunts.
…
MR VALE: All youse want to fucking do 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 Vale 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 46
Decision Date: 3 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission appealed a decision of the Racing Disciplinary Board which had reduced the disqualification period imposed on the respondent, a thoroughbred trainer, following his abusive response to a request for information by the Racing Steward. The Racing Steward had imposed a disqualification of 18 months on the respondent for his outburst of swearing and insults, which was a breach of the Australian Rules of Racing rule 175. The respondent appealed the decision to the Racing Disciplinary Board, which set aside the disqualification and substituted a six-month suspension. The Commission sought to have the Board's decision reviewed on the basis of alleged errors of law, including the Board's consideration of an erroneous allegation of breach of natural justice by the Stewards Inquiry.

The court had to determine whether the Racing Disciplinary Board had erred in law by setting aside the Stewards Inquiry's decision and substituting a lesser penalty. The court also had to consider whether the Board had failed to address an erroneous allegation of a breach of natural justice made during the Stewards Inquiry. Additionally, the court was required to assess whether the penalty imposed by the Racing Disciplinary Board was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the Racing Disciplinary Board had not erred in law in setting aside the Stewards Inquiry's decision. The court held that the Board was entitled to substitute its own penalty, even if it was less severe, as long as it was within the range of penalties available under the rules. The court also found that the allegation of a breach of natural justice was not a material consideration in the Board's decision, as it had not affected the outcome. Finally, the court held that the six-month suspension imposed by the Board was not manifestly inadequate, as it was within the range of penalties available and took into account the respondent's guilty plea and previous good record.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Racing Disciplinary Board's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.