Quinn v Darling Downs Rugby Union Inc
[2009] NSWDC 145
•23 June 2009
CITATION: Quinn v Darling Downs Rugby Union Inc. [2009] NSWDC 145 HEARING DATE(S): 23 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
23 June 2009EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 23 June 2009 JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ DECISION: (1) Pursuant to s 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), these proceedings are stayed until further order.
(2) This matter is placed in the Inactive List with a notional review date of Friday 11 December 2009.
(3) Costs of this application be costs in the cause.
(4) Grant the defendants liberty to apply to the judge case managing these proceedings in Queensland in relation to order (3).CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation - plaintiff brings proceedings in NSW for publication in Queensland - application by defendant for stay - cost and delay of cross-vesting application in a non-media publication discussed - application for stay granted LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-62 and 67
Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
Defamation Act 1898 (Qld)
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act, 1993 (ACT), s 5(2)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14B and 56A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4 and 14.28CASES CITED: BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 211 ALR 523
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Garsec Pty Ltd v His Majesty Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211
Geelong Advertiser Pty Ltd v Bertolacci [2008] NSWSC 1363
Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571
KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd v Chilcott [2001] NSWCA 116
Lamont v Dwyer [2007] ACTSC 47
Le Busque v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] ACTSC 46
McGregor v Potts [2005] NSWSC 1098
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Simeone v Walker [2006] SASC 387
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538PARTIES: Plaintiff: Geoffrey Frank Michael Quinn
First Defendant: Darling Downs Rugby Union Inc.
Second Defendant: Michael Coorey
Third Defendant: Dominic DoyleFILE NUMBER(S): 4573 of 2008 COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen
Defendants: Ms J GleesonSOLICITORS: Plaintiff: HIV/AIDS Legal Centre Inc
Defendants: A R Conolly & Company
Judgment
Stay of proceedings in defamation
[1] The defendants bring an application pursuant to s 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for a stay of these proceedings, asserting that New South Wales is not a convenient forum.
[2] The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on 29 September 2008 claiming damages for three publications in New South Wales pleaded as arising pursuant to the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW). The first of these was a letter dated 9 July 2002 which was sent to the Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club on 15 June 2005. The second was a letter dated 26 August 2002 which was sent to the Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club on the same date. The third was the covering letter which enclosed the first two letters. These are not media publications; they are letters also sent to a series of individuals in Queensland, and the extent of publication is very limited.
[3] There were substantial deficiencies with this Statement of Claim. Any action for defamation in New South Wales for a publication on 15 June 2005 was statute barred by 29 September 2008 by reason of s 14B Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), as the court is not empowered to extend the limitation period pursuant to s 56A Limitation Act 1969 beyond the maximum three year period, which had already expired prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In addition, the three letters were all one publication.
[4] An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 24 April 2009. Only one publication is now pleaded, namely the letter of 15 June 2005 with its annexures. However, the defendants challenge the imputations pleaded and I note the particulars of publication still include a claim of publication in New South Wales although in reality all the publications which are not time barred occurred in Queensland.
[5] The plaintiff now concedes that there is no cause of action in New South Wales and that the only action the plaintiff has for defamation must arise from publication in Queensland, as the limitation under the repealed Defamation Act 1898 (Qld) is six years; the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) does not apply by reason of s 49(1) as the publication falls outside the commencement date of that Act, namely 1 January 2006. The plaintiff does, however, point to the time barred publications to the Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club for “grapevine effect” damages both in New South Wales and Queensland (paragraph 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim) and one of the issues of law in any trial in New South Wales would be if a plaintiff is entitled to rely upon “grapevine effect” from a time-barred publication as a matter going to damages.
[6] The matter complained of is set out as a schedule (see SCHEDULE “A”) to this judgment. It will be readily apparent that the entirety of its subject matter relates to events in Queensland, as Mr Rasmussen for the plaintiff conceded. The subject matter is factually complex; the letters refer to at least eleven incidents of some antiquity, including the circumstances in which the plaintiff allegedly took nude photographs of the under-19 football team on occasions in 2001 and 2002, as well as to a number of financial transactions during that period.
[7] A defendant who objects to the hearing of proceedings in New South Wales and seeks a transfer to another state has several courses available, the most commonly used being an application under cross-vesting legislation: BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 211 ALR 523; Le Busque v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] ACTSC 46 (“Le Busque”); Lamont v Dwyer [2007] ACTSC 47; Simeone v Walker [2006] SASC 387 (“Simeone”). This is an expensive and time-consuming process for both parties. The application usually made to the District Court is for a stay pending an application in the Supreme Court for a transfer, as matters are transferred first to the Supreme Court and then to the interstate Supreme Court: see for example Geelong Advertiser Pty Ltd v Bertolacci [2008] NSWSC 1363. Another alternative is to file a Notice of Discontinuance in the District Court and start again, as the plaintiff attempted to do in very similar factual circumstances in KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd v Chilcott [2001] NSWCA 116.
[8] Mr Rasmussen, who appeared for the plaintiff, did not raise the appropriateness of the defendants invoking the cross-vesting procedure as opposed to a general stay, and did not submit that the purpose of the stay should be limited to requiring the defendants (as opposed to the plaintiff) to go to the Supreme Court for a transfer and a cross-vesting application. He in fact pointed out that the parties would not be much better off in the Supreme Court in Brisbane and that the best venue would be the District Court in Toowoomba, which tends to underline the common sense of a stay to enable the plaintiff to start again.
[9] Complaints of inconvenient forum are brought where the other jurisdiction is foreign, not where the other jurisdiction is another State or Territory of Australia, although the principles for dealing with such an application are similar: Le Busque at [6] – [7].
[10] The entitlement of a defendant to seek a stay under s 67 Civil Procedure Act, and whether it can be used to impose the burden of applying for a transfer, as opposed to seeking a cross-vesting order, is something of a novel issue. However, it must be remembered that the nature and extent of s 67 needs to be read in light of ss 56-62 Civil Procedure Act (the “overriding purpose” and “elimination of delay” provisions). Section 67 gives the court explicit power to stay proceedings and is complemented by rr 13.4 and 14.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
[11] In the present case, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in New South Wales which were time barred and which related to events which occurred in Queensland in 2001 and 2002. The complexities of any trial, which would need to be conducted under a repealed New South Wales Act as to procedure and a repealed Queensland Act to substantive law issues, would be considerable. Miss Gleeson, for the defendants, also draws to my attention the fact that there could be problems under the Queensland criminal law in relation to documents sought from the police concerning a number of police investigations referred to. This is not just a case where the defendants complain about costs and prejudice; it is one where case management and trial issues for this court would be of a very high order. The factual situation underlying this application truly is exceptional.
[12] The defendants point to the following matters in support of the application:
(a) The applicable law is the law of Queensland, which is a significant factor in relation to convenient forum, for the reasons explained by Brereton J in McGregor v Potts [2005] NSWSC 1098 at [48] ( “McGregor ”), where his Honour said:
“ [48] In some situations, the continuation of an action in a selected (local) forum, though not amounting to vexation or oppression or an abuse of process in the strict sense, will amount to an injustice to the defendant when the bringing of the action in some other available and competent forum would not occasion an injustice to the plaintiff [ Voth , 556]. The local forum would be a “clearly inappropriate” one where “the subject matter of the action and the parties had little connection with that forum and the defendant may be put to great expense and inconvenience in contesting the action in that forum” [ Voth , 557]. There is no hint in their Honours’ reasoning that, in addition, proof of actual vexation or oppression was required: in effect, continuation of proceedings is presumed to be vexatious or oppressive where the forum is shown to be “clearly inappropriate”.”
I note that in Le Busque the matter complained of was statute barred in the Australian Capital Territory but that Crispin J still refused the application under s 5(2) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act , 1993 (ACT). However, that was a case where the matter complained of had been published nationally and where the ACT was the plaintiff’s “home town”, which outweighed this issue. That is not the case here as the publications (apart from the statute-barred 2005 publication) were all in Queensland and the plaintiff’s association with New South Wales is of recent and brief duration.(c) While the plaintiff has the personal juridical advantage of residing in New South Wales and having some “grapevine” witnesses in this state, there is no other juridical advantage. The plaintiff would have the advantage of avoiding a jury trial on all issues which is likely to occur in Queensland but the disadvantage of the requirement for a s 7A jury trial with all its attendant technicalities, a matter Mr Rasmussen considered, on balance, to be a disadvantage.(b) The subject matter, the defendants and all of their witnesses are located in Queensland. A substantial number of subpoenae would need to be issued to banks and other institutions in Queensland. In an affidavit in support sworn by Mr Darren King, a long list of witnesses is given, all of whom reside in Queensland. Some of these witnesses will give evidence as to publication, some as to whether they received the matters complained of, and others as to issues going to defences. In this regard the factual basis is very similar to that in Simeone v Walker , where an application to transfer proceedings from South Australia to Queensland was granted for these “compelling” reasons (Debelle J at [11]).
[13] An appropriate issue to take into account in cases such as this is to contrast the legal costs with the amount likely to be awarded. The imputations (see SCHEDULE “B”) are of a serious nature. However, there has been substantial delay in the commencement and prosecution of this litigation. While I should be careful not to penalise the plaintiff for this (as I have been informed that he is commencing proceedings for professional negligence against his former solicitor for failing to commence proceedings in time), the fact remains that the length of time since the publication and limited publication mean that the damages awarded, even if the plaintiff is entirely successful, could be Pyrrhic in nature. The plaintiff will also need to issue subpoenae for evidence and call witnesses from Queensland if there is to be a defence of justification, and the solicitor/client component of the costs could conceivably outweigh any verdict awarded.
[14] The plaintiff points to evidence of the “grapevine effect” in New South Wales, and has identified three persons who are members of the Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club who may be called in this regard. The plaintiff can of course give evidence of “grapevine effect” without calling any witnesses. The plaintiff also points to correspondence he had with the Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Rugby Union, but such correspondence could be tendered without the need to call this gentleman. Similarly, evidence of shunning and avoiding can be given by the plaintiff without the need to call the persons who shunned and avoided the plaintiff.
[15] If I were to apply the “clearly inappropriate forum” test, the issue would be to determine whether the conduct of the case would be seriously and unfairly burdensome or unjustifiably troubling: Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 at 243 and 247-248. This task involves the judge hearing the application in what has been called an impressionistic determination and is capable of taking into account a wide range of consideration: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 (“Voth”). Ms Gleeson drew my attention to the following statement from Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 at 586-587:
“In Voth , this Court adopted for Australia the test propounded by Deane J in Oceanic Sun , namely, that a stay should be granted if the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum, which will be the case if continuation of the proceedings in that court would be oppressive, in the sense of “seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging”, or, vexatious, in the sense of “productive of serious and unjustified trouble and harassment”. It was also held in Voth that, in determining whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum, “the discussion by Lord Goff in Spiliada of relevant ‘connecting factors’ and ‘a legitimate personal or juridical advantage’ provides valuable assistance”.”
[16] This was explained by Brereton J in McGregor at [46] - [47]:
[47] Consistently with this approach, the High Court pointed out that the “clearly inappropriate forum” test was similar to, and for that reason likely to yield the same result as, the “more appropriate forum” test in the majority of cases, the difference between the two being of critical significance only in those probably rare cases in which it is held that an available foreign tribunal is the natural or more appropriate forum, but in which it cannot be said that the local tribunal is a “clearly inappropriate” one. Allowing that the question that the “clearly inappropriate forum” test presents is slightly different — in that it focuses on the advantages and disadvantages arising from a continuation of the proceedings in the selected forum, rather than on the need to make a comparative judgment between the two forums — their Honours said that considerations relating to the suitability of the alternative forum were still relevant to examination of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the selected forum: “The important point is that, in those cases in which the ascertainment of the natural forum is a complex and finely balanced question, the court may more readily conclude that it is not a clearly inappropriate forum” ( Voth (at 558)). This indicates that the fundamental issue is the degree of connexion which the proceedings have with the local forum: while a conclusion that they have a greater connection with a foreign forum will not justify a conclusion that their continuation in the local forum is vexatious or oppressive, one that they have so clearly a stronger connection with a foreign forum that the local court can be said to be “clearly inappropriate” will do so.”[46] The effect of the High Court's endorsement, in Voth , of the value of Lord Goff's analysis of connecting factors, is that, in deciding whether the continuation of proceedings in the local forum is vexatious or oppressive, if an analysis of the connecting factors shows that the question of connection is not finely balanced but very clearly one way, then it can be presumed that compelling the foreign party to litigate in the local forum will occasion vexation and oppression in the relevant sense — much as it can be presumed that there is prejudice from delay (as to which see Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 551, 555, per McHugh J). If proof of actual vexation or oppression were essential, examination of the various connecting factors would be a sterile exercise.
[17] The reference to Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, the landmark case on the dangers of delay in litigation, is of particular relevance in these proceedings. This is a case where the relevant facts occurred more than seven years ago. Whatever the plaintiff’s reasons for delay in commencing this action (and I note in the matter complained of there are references to correspondence with him about these matters in June 2002) it is essential that these proceedings should be prosecuted with vigour to avoid further delays in the future. It is clear to me that this is most likely to happen if the case is heard in Queensland, preferably in a court in or near to Toowoomba.
[18] The Court of Appeal in Garsec Pty Ltd v His Majesty Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211 (“Garsec”) has set out the particular factors to be taken into account including the availability of witnesses, the law governing the transactions and the place where the parties reside or carry on business. In Garsec an important issue was whether the stay would have the consequence of no proceedings could be successfully pursued in the jurisdiction of Brunei (Garsec at [7]). The principal objection raised by Mr Rasmussen is that the plaintiff, who is a person of limited financial means, may not be able to obtain assistance from a legal aid or referral centre or legal representation on a ‘no win no fee’ basis in Queensland.
[19] While I have given this question anxious consideration, and taken into account the matters raised by Spigleman J in Garsec at [7]-[20], this is not a case where the alternative forum is unavailable. There is no evidence before me that the plaintiff has endeavoured to find ‘no win no fee’ lawyers in Queensland but failed. In any event, the solicitors who have conduct of this matter can continue to conduct these proceedings with the aid of a Queensland agent and can continue to work in accordance with his retainer, as can Mr Rasmussen. Given that the whole of the factual background arises in Queensland it would be necessary for them to do this in any event.
[20] Accordingly, if I were to apply the test generally applicable in cross-vesting applications to this application, I would have regard to the factors which Debelle J found so compelling in Simeone and make the same orders, for the same reasons. By granting a stay so that the plaintiff can start again in the District Court in Queensland (where this claim is still in time), I am cutting the Gordian knot.
[21] The entitlement of a plaintiff to commence proceedings in the jurisdiction to which he resides, and in which there is some evidence as to damage, is not lightly to be disregarded. However, all of the evidence on all other issues, including aggravated compensatory damages (there being a claim on the basis of the falsity of the imputations) will require witnesses and documents from Queensland and the connection with Queensland is overwhelming.
[22] I have not only taken into account the degree of disadvantage to the defendants (and for that matter the plaintiff) but also the degree of complexity for the judges in this court who case manage the proceedings and hear the trial. It would be necessary for the trial judge to conduct the trial under repealed Queensland legislation on substantive law issues and in accordance with repealed New South Wales legislation on procedural issues. There are differences between these New South Wales and Queensland repealed statutes, such as the unavailability of the defence of contextual truth In Queensland which, looking at the imputations the plaintiff has pleaded (and has attempted to avoid) is likely to be a significant complicating factor for the trial judge. In particular the issuing of subpoenae is likely to be a very substantial costs to both sides, as all subpoenae would need to be served interstate. On any test, this is a clear case where all of the factors favour the proceedings being heard in Queensland.
[23] Accordingly, rather than require the parties to go through the procedure of transferring the matter under cross-vesting legislation, I propose to take the simpler course proposed by the defendants and to stay these proceedings pursuant to s 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 until further order. I shall place this matter in the Inactive List with a review date of 11 December 2009. The plaintiff can start proceedings again in Queensland.
Ancillary matters
[24] The defendants also brought an application to strike out a number of the imputations on the basis of form and capacity. The statement of claim clearly requires some surgery. The parties have agreed that if these proceedings are to be heard in Queensland it is appropriate that the matter should be determined by the judge who is case managing these proceedings.
[25] The defendants seek costs of the application for a stay. There is much to be said for an order that costs follow the event. However, the plaintiff, who is a person of limited means, will have the expense of starting the litigation again. He should not have the additional burden of a substantial costs order operating as a brake on this step. In my view, an appropriate order is to make an order that costs be costs in the cause, but to grant the defendants liberty to apply to the judge case managing these proceedings in any other court for any different costs order sought.
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 67 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), these proceedings are stayed until further order.
(2) This matter is placed in the Inactive List with a notional review date of Friday 11 December 2009.
(3) Costs of this application be costs in the cause.
(4) Grant the defendants liberty to apply to the judge case managing these proceedings in Queensland in relation to order (3).
15 June 2005
1. Mr Theo Psarus
- Chief Executive Officer – QRU
PO Box 205
KELVIN GROVE DC
BRISBANE QLD 4059
2. Dear Theo
3. RE: Concerns over coach, Geoffrey Francis Michael Quinn.
4. Please find attached:
- 1. Information sent to Queensland Rugby Union in 2002, regarding concerns over the abovementioned person.
5. Earlier this week we were horrified to see our local newspaper, the Toowoomba Chronicle, print articles regarding the abovementioned person. As previously reported to the QRU, Mr Quinn, was involved in a series of distasteful incidents during the 2002 – U/19 representative season.
6. These incidents includes a series of events where, Mr Quinn, inappropriately dealt with youth and finances. We are therefore amazed that Mr Quinn has returned to our region for a schoolboy match where minors are involved and would be extremely surprised if, Mr Quinn, possessed a suitability card.
7. Not wishing to elaborate in this format, briefly, the distasteful incidents involved allegations by players of inappropriate / offensive photographs being taken without consent, the execution of a police search warrant and the withholding of approximately $4,500.00 of revenue raised directly from the DDRU/19 players.
8. Further investigations by our union unveiled that Mr Quinn had in fact been under the investigation of taskforce ARGUS (QLD Police Service), for many years. That he had been involved with a series of distasteful incidents whilst involved with the UQ Gatton and local Armidale rugby clubs and therefore the DDRU management committee terminated the appointment of Mr Quinn as U/19 representative coach in June 2002. We last heard, Mr Quinn, had fled Australia to America and made contact with the American national rugby union association to alert them of his pre-disposition to young males.
9. Our 2002 letters to the QRU empowered you to revoke his coaching re-accreditation, however this has clearly not occurred. The D.D.R.U. has contacted the East Suburbs rugby club, Downlands College and the Toowoomba Grammar School. It is our belief that if Mr Quinn’s accreditation had have been revoked at the time all this extra work could have been avoided.
10. We have taken these actions as a ‘duty of care!’ and request you advise us quickly of what action the QRU has taken in this matter.
11. Yours Faithfully
…………………………..DARLING DOWNS RUGBY UNION INC.
- General Manager
- Mr Bob Wood, Rugby Master, Toowoomba Grammar School
Mr Lindsay Mason, Sports Master, Downlands College.
9th June 2002
14. Mr Jeff Miller
- Chief Executive Officer
Queensland Rugby Union
PO Box 205
KELVIN GROVE DC
BRISBANE Qld 4059
15. Senior Police Inspector
- Queensland Police Service
Neil Street
Toowoomba Qld 4350
16. Dear Gentlement,
17. MR GEOFFREY QUINN – MOST CONFIDENTIAL
18. I know that you are aware of some of the actions taken by Mr Quinn as a rugby coach and acting without authority, as an agent of the Darling Downs Rugby Union (DDRU) this year. I am now in a position to enunciate the actions of Mr Quinn, the concerns and actions of the DDRU and the actions that I request from the Queensland Police Service and the assistance that I seek from both the QRU and the QRU legal advisers.
19. Background. Mr Quinn was appointed by the DDRU to be coach of the DDRU Under 19 2002 side after he submitted a written application for the position. Mr Quinn held a coaching position at the Gatton College Club (UQ-Gatton) in 2001. Mr Quinn now holds neither management nor coaching positions with that Club.
20. Mr Quinn was not provided with a letter of appointment by the DDRU (that will occur from Season 2003); however, he was informed by the DDRU President and Development Officer in the Development Office that he had no authority to commit any expenditure as Under 19 Coach. This occurred on the 16th January 2002.
21. Misrepresentation. Under the guise of the position of DDRU Under 19 Coach, Mr Quinn has effectively committed the DDRU to $8,189.27 worth of debts, (the DDRU Senior side cost the DDRU approximately $3,000 for 2002 by comparison), done without the concurrence of the DDRU Management Committee or its individual members.
22. It needs to be stated that all Mr Quinn’s actions, and the expenditure that he has incurred relate to rugby training, competition and excursions to Ballymore. He also is in the habit of ‘mentioning’; his plans to Individual Committee Members and the DDRU Development Officer; which he then interprets and argues as official concurrence for his expenditures.
23. One example: Mr Quinn gained a number of complimentary Super 12 tickets from the DDRU, he then booked a bus, took the Under 19 team to the game – charging them for their participation and presented the DDRU with the bus travel and other expenses. The money extracted from the players (without the concurrence or approval of the DDRU) is still to be accounted for.
24. Mr Quinn has acquired various rugby related material for rallie [sic] purposes which have all been billed to the DDRU. The DDRU cannot locate the exact whereabouts of these articles.
25. Mr Quinn booked a bus for his team to travel to Goondiwindi for an Queensland Country fixture, an internal DDRU trip, without DDRU authority and committed the DDRU to in excess of $800 for meals on the day.
26. Some of the bills presented to the DDRU have been processed by the Accounts Department of the UQ, Gatton Campus. Mr Quinn is a 55-year-old PhD Agricultural Science student who resides on the Gatton College campus, adjacent to the rugby playing fields. The DDRU intends to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of each account and, if necessary, advise the UQ Gatton Campus Manager that Gatton College has been a party to misrepresentation or fraud.
27. Stolen Property. Mr Quinn still has distinctive DDRU property, i.e. the 2002 DDRU Under 19 rugby jerseys, which he refuses to return. He was asked for these to be returned by a DDRU Committee member on the 8th June and again on the 22nd of June – on both occasions he admitted to having the jerseys in his possession and his intention not to return them. This is despite being directed to do so by a resolution of the DDRU Management Committee meeting held on the 3rd June, at which Mr Quinn was present. Mr Quinn was also asked to return the jerseys by the DDRU Open XV Captain on a number of occasions.
28. Mr Quinn attempted to conduct his own ‘official’ DDRU Under 19 Presentation Night at the University of Southern Queensland on 22nd of June. It was his intention to present the DDRU jerseys to the players. This event was interrupted by the DDRU President and a Committee Member where Mr Quinn, and his colleague, were informed of his legal position and of their intention to report the possession of DDRU property to the Queensland Police Service. This was done, the following Monday the 24th and a copy of that official complaint is attached.
29. Video Incident. Mr Quinn has forwarded video bills (for the filming of representative games) to the DDRU for the sum of $1,100 – this was after the DDRU Management Meeting of 3rd June where the Committee, expressed its surprise at the expenditure incurred, but nevertheless agreed that the bills had to be paid. At Mr Quinn’s ‘Presentation Night’ individual videotapes were in Mr Quinn’s possession to be presented to individual players. The person who provided these tapes claimed he had provided them to Mr Quinn at no charge.
30. Raffle. Mr Quinn distributed a number of raffle tickets to members of the DDRU Under 19 side under the guise of a DDRU approved raffle. This was done without the knowledge or approval of the DDRU. Mr Quinn charged the prizes and tickets for the raffle to the DDRU, again without authority. The response of the DDRU Management Committee is contained in Mr Hickey’s letter to Mr Quinn of 6th June. Accordingly, Mr Sean Hale, the DDRU Treasurer attended the 15th June DDRU fixture at Gatton; Mr Quinn was not in attendance and could not be located. The Gaming Commission has been advised by the DDRU of the failure of Mr Quinn to act in accordance with Queensland Treasury requirements, a copy is attached.
31. Mr Quinn’s Coaching Behaviour. Mr Quinn’s behaviour following the defeat of the DDRU Under 19 XV could be described as obsessive and immature. Mr Quinn refused to accept the full-time score and provided video evidence of the ‘referee’s bias’, represented himself to the QRU and to the individual referee – all on his own volition. Mr Luke Wyatt of the QRU has more detail on his episode, which might represent a violation of the QRU Coach’s code of Conduct.
32. Inappropriate Behaviour. Mr Quinn has been accused by a number of the DDRU Under 19 XV of photographing their genital regions while they were urinating and despite their protestations. The DDRU received an anonymous undated letter in May; our resultant actions including emailing the QRU to inform you of this accusation and the interviewing of the Under 19 side to ascertain the truth of these accusations. As a result of this action two team members have been prepared to submit a written complaint. This complaint, dated 4th of July, is attached. As a result of these interviews, is was obvious that a number of players left the DDRU Representative Under 19 side because of Mr Quinn’s ‘approach’ and his costly ‘social activities’. The DDRU will be taking this complaint to the Queensland Police Service at Toowoomba.
33. There is another matter concerning Mr Quinn’s actions in relation to an individual player, which is currently under review – the prime concern of the DDRU is for the well being of the player. It concerns the ‘harassment’ of, and the discomfort felt by that player, a DDRU Under 19 player (who is eligible to play Under 19 next year) who is on the UQ Gatton Campus – the same Campus that Mr Quinn resides. Mr Dominic Doyle, the DDRU Development Officer is the point of contact on this issue.
Conclusion
34. It is my firm belief that Mr Quinn uses his position as Coach and his ‘perceived’ power of that position to ingratiate himself to the members of the 2002 DDRU Under 19 XV. It needs to be stated that of the 40 players who represented the DDRU 2002 Under 19 XV, eight were present at Mr Quinn’s ‘Presentation Night.’ The DDRU is acutely aware that the web of Mr Quinn’s actions can be interpreted as ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘boys’ pranks’; nevertheless the actions of a 55 year old with 18 and some 17 year olds is very different to ‘boys pranks’ among peers.
35. Mr Quinn’s modus operandi is a cleverly weaved plan of action intended to emphasis his power, his authority and his wherewithal in the eyes of his young charges. He has taken advantage of a part-time Sporting Committee to establish himself on his target market. The DDRU is aware that Mr Quinn previously coached a composite University side in Armidale in 1994. The DDRU has taken the following actions:
· advised you of the ‘camera’ incident on 30 of May;
· reported the illegal possession of DDRU property to the Police on 24th June;
· advised the Gaming Commission of Mr Quinn’s action;
36. The DDRU intends to report the ‘camera incident’ to the Police and to validate Mr Quinn’s bills with the relevant merchants and, if necessary to advise the Gatton College Campus Manager of the consequences. It also intends to distribute to all DDRU Clubs the following Notice: “Mr Geoff Quinn was the DDRU 2002 Under 19 Coach. That position was declared vacant on 3rd June and subsequently; Mr Quinn has no coaching responsibilities for any DDRU XV. Further, Mr Quinn is not, and has never been a member of the DDRU Management Committee or its Executive.”
37. The DDRU formally request that it be provided with legal access to clear this matter entirely. The DDRU believes that as a result of further investigations at least one player or players might require counselling and that Mr Quinn’s rugby coaching accreditation should be withdrawn until his actions receive favourable review. The DDRU is aware of a number of players’ parents very dissatisfied with Mr Quinn’s treatment of their sons – we believe that a player’s parent wrote the anonymous letter.
38. I find this entire matter tedious and distasteful. However, people who employ Mr Quinn’s modus operandi bank on Committees such as the DDRU not ‘grasping the nettle.’ Mr Quinn, at the present time, is mounting a campaign against the DDRU quoting our current actions as motivated by vindictiveness and jealousy of his coaching success. I very much appreciate your assistance with this matter.
39. Yours truly
MICK COOREY
DDRU President
26th August 2002
40. Mr Jeff Miller
Chief Executive Officer
Queensland Rugby Union
PO Box 205
KELVIN GROVE DC
BRISBANE Qld 4059
41. Inspector Bill Knowles
Inspector Toowoomba District
Toowoomba Police Station
4/173 Hume Street
TOOWOOMBA Qld 4350
42. Dear Gentlemen,
43. MR GEOFFREY FRANCIS MICHAEL QUINN – UPDATE – MOST CONFIDENTIAL
44. I must express my disappointment for not having received any acknowledgement, or any other communication on this matter from the QRU or its management, since our registered communication was sent on 11th July. The only communication on this matter on behalf of the QRU has been a verbal assurance of legal support from Mr Wyatt in June.
45. This has been a very difficult matter to manage, and has taken up an extraordinary amount of time by the voluntary DDRU Management Committee. I can assure you all, that Mr Quinn’s ‘habits’ are very common knowledge among the DDRU Under 19 XV members (and a significant number of parents) the UQ Gatton College Management Committee, the UQ Gatton 2002 Under 19 XV members, as well as the DDRU Management Committee.
46. I wish to now provide further assistance of Mr Quinn’s modus operandi which conclusively reveals that his operating pattern in relation to the 2002 DDRU Under 19 XV was not an isolated incident.
47. UQ Gatton College Rugby Club – 2001 Incident. Mr Quinn was the UQ Gatton Rugby Club 2001 Under 19 Coach. An incident occurred during the Gatton Vs Goondiwindi fixture played at Goondiwindi. During the return bus trip from Goondiwindi UQ Gatton Rugby College have a quaint practice of ‘travelling nude.’ During this trip Mr Quinn took a series of photographs of the players, both Senior and Under 19. Mr Quinn refused to return the film when this was demanded by one of the UQ Gatton Club Committee, and the matter was resolved by the UQ Gatton Club.
48. Mr Quinn also incurred debts on behalf of the UQ Gatton Club, some of which are still to be resolved. Mr Quinn has no position in the UQ Gatton Rugby Club. However, the UQ Gatton Rugby Club has a very high attrition rate amongst its players and officials because of its ‘isolated’ University population. The ‘corporate knowledge’ concerning Mr Quinn can be easily lost within the UQ Gatton Club, allowing him the opportunity to continue operating in his own fashion. Attached is a statement by the 2002 UQ Gatton President, Mr Peter Wyman who, with Mr Kevin Anderson the Club Vice-President, are both prepared to make statements concerning this matter.
49. 2002 DDRU Under 19 Incident. The second player involved has confirmed the incident of Mr Quinn photographing the two players urinating despite their protestations. He is in the process of forwarding a letter of complaint to the DDRU.
50. Update on Misrepresentation and Theft. Since the DDRU complaint to the Queensland Police and the Qld Gaming Commission, most of the articles related to the raffle have been forwarded to the DDRU – some monies are still outstanding. However, the DDRU Under 19 jerseys have not been returned to the DDRU are presumably are still in the possession of Mr Quinn. It can only be assumed that Mr Quinn intends to use these as a bargaining tool with the DDRU or the 2002 DDRU Under 19 players.
51. DDRU Management Committee Actions. The DDRU Management Committee, as advised in our July letter, on the 31st July sent a letter to all DDRU Clubs concerning Mr Quinn’s position. A copy is attached.
52. Further the DDRU Management Committee has advertised for its 2003 Coaching positions. This was going to occur at the time; however, it is appreciated that this action does underplay Mr Quinn’s declared position of occupying a DDRU Coaching position next year. A copy of the advertisement dated 17th August is attached.
53. The DDRU Management Committee has, through its Development Officer, kept in close contact with the UQ Gatton Under 19 player who has been harassed by Mr Quinn, and who was invited to his premises at night to discuss the 2003 DDRU Under 19 Team program. That player’s mother has been also been advised of the situation and the actions of the DDRU.
54. Mr Quinn’s Actions. Mr Quinn wrote to the DDRU President in July citing possible legal action against the DDRU or Individual officials
55. The DDRU Management Committee urgently seeks the following advice and assistance from the QRU:
· Acknowledgement of this letter and the DDRU letter dated 9th July entitled ‘Mr Geoffrey Quinn – Most Confidential’
· Confirm the offer in writing of legal assistance if required – this was requested originally requested in July;
· Confirm what action has been taken by the QRU on this matter;
· Confirm the current status of Mr Geoffrey Francis Michael Quinn’s current rugby coaching accreditation;
· Advise whether the financial misrepresentation against the DDRU, UQ Gatton Rugby Club and the State Gaming Commission; the illegal possession of DDRU property resulting in Queensland Police action and the habit of taking images of rugby players in a naked condition in 2001 and 2002 by Mr Quinn does constitute ‘conduct unbecoming’ of an accredited coach and conduct likely to bring the game into disrepute?
· Advise the DDRU what actions, and responsibilities, the DDRU and QRU have and need to be taken should Mr Quinn reappear as a Junior Coach in the Brisbane Sub-Districts competition – or any other sporting competition;
· Advise the DDRU on its ability to communicate to all DDRU Clubs that Mr Quinn is a ‘persona no grata’ and is not to occupy any formal coaching or administrative positions in any DDRU Club;
· What legal obligation does the DDRU and QRU have to the UQ Gatton? – considering that Mr Quinn has submitted false invoices through its Faculties which have been forwarded onto the DDRU, has harassed a student and occupies a house on campus adjacent to the UQ Gatton playing fields.
56. Yours truly
MICHAEL COOREY
DDRU President
57. Att:
Letter by Mr Peter Wyam, 2002 UQ Gatton Rugby Club President;
DDRU letter to DDRU Clubs re Mr Quinn of 31 July;
Advertisement for DDRU 2003 Representative Coaches;
58. Att:
1. Anonymous undated letter of complaint received by the DDRU in May 2002;
2. DDRU letter to QRU of 30th May;
3. DDRU Committee Minutes of 3rd June;
4. Letter from Mr Hickey to Mr Quinn re raffle, and subsequent conversation dated 6th June;
5. DDRU Report to Qld Police Service of 23rd June;
6. DDRU Report to Gaming Commission;
7. Letter of complaint to DDRU by player dated 4th Juy [sic] 2002.
Imputations pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim
(a) The plaintiff inappropriately dealt with youth and finances. (Paragraph 6)
(b) The plaintiff took offensive photographs of Under 19 rugby players. (Paragraphs 5, 7 and 55)
(c) The plaintiff is not suitable to be involved in a schoolboy rugby match where minors are involved. (Paragraphs 5, 6 and 55)
(d) The plaintiff was suspected of criminal conduct by the Police because they executed a search warrant. (Paragraph 7)
(e) The plaintiff had been under investigation by taskforce ARGUS (QLD Police Service) for many years. (Paragraph 8)
(f) The plaintiff is a paedophile. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 55)
(g) That because of the plaintiff’s involvement in a series of distasteful incidents whilst involved in UQ Gatton, and local Armidale rugby clubs the DDRU Management Committee terminated his employment as Under 19 representative coach. (Paragraphs 5 and 8)
(h) The plaintiff fled to America to avoid investigation by the Police. (Paragraph 8)
(i) The plaintiff had an improper pre-disposition for young males. (Paragraphs 8 and 55)
(j) The plaintiff is a sexual pervert. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 32, 35, 47, 49 and 55)
(k) The plaintiff extracted money from Under 19 team players and has not accounted for it. (Paragraph 23)
(l) The plaintiff has committed the DDRU to expenses without authority. (Paragraphs 21, 22, 25, 29, 30 and 48)
(m) The plaintiff is dishonest. (Paragraphs 6, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 55)
(n) By presenting bills to the DDRU for payment which had been processed by UQ Gatton Campus the plaintiff committed fraud. (Paragraph 26)
(o) The plaintiff is a fraudster. (Paragraphs 26 and 55)
(p) The plaintiff stole the 2002 DDRU under 19 Rugby jerseys. (Paragraphs 27, 35, 50 and 55)
(q) The plaintiff is a thief. (Paragraphs 23 and 55)
(r) The plaintiff failed to act in accordance with Queensland Treasury requirements when organising a raffle. (Paragraphs 30, 35, 50 and 55)
(s) The plaintiff’s behaviour following the defeat of the under 19 XV was obsessive and immature. (Paragraph 31)
(t) The plaintiff photographed the genital regions of a number of under 19 XV players whilst they were urinating. (Paragraphs 32, 35, 49 and 55)
(u) The plaintiff harassed an under 19 player. (Paragraphs 33, 53 and 33)
(v) The plaintiff took photographs of naked rugby players when he should not have. (Paragraphs 47 and 55)
(w) The plaintiff misappropriated money of the DDRU. (Paragraph 55)
1
15
7