Racing Queensland Ltd v Bellamy - [2011] QCATA 30

CITATION:

Racing Queensland Ltd v Bellamy [2011] QCATA 30

PARTIES:	Racing Queensland Ltd (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Jay Carl Thomas Bellamy (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL074-10

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 refused.

2. Leave to appeal on all other grounds refused.

3. Any party seeking costs should file and serve its submissions within 14 days; the other party will file and serve its submissions within 7 days thereafter.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – HARNESS RACING – where alleged race fixing – where alleged that learned Member failed to apply appropriate standard of proof – whether error of law

APPEAL – HARNESS RACING – where alleged race fixing – where separate consideration was not given to each charge – whether finding was open on the evidence

APPEAL – HARNESS RACING – where alleged race fixing – where alleged that learned Member failed to apply relevant harness racing principles – whether finding was open on the evidence

Australian Harness Racing Rules, rr 147, 149, 243
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009, ss 19, 142

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Peter Callaghan SC instructed by Schweikert Harris Lawyers for the Applicant/Appellant
RESPONDENT:	Mr James Murdoch SC instructed by Gabriel, Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

At a harness race meeting on the Gold Coast on 10 September 2009 a horse called Harkham won the fourth race. Perfect Liner, ridden by Mr Bellamy, came sixth. Makalong Shadow came fifth. The favourite, Lamborgindi, came eighth.

The winner Harkham, and Perfect Liner, had the same owner. That owner, and Mr Bellamy, and the owners and trainers of Makalong Shadow were charged with and convicted by the stewards of a number of offences. All these offences were alleged to have occurred in the course of a conspiracy or corrupt exercise, masterminded by the owner of Harkham and Perfect Liner, through which that owner would receive large winnings on bets that Harkham would win, and Lamborgindi would do no better than third.

The three charges against Mr Bellamy which the stewards found were proven arose under particular provisions of the Australian Harness Racing Rules: failing to race Perfect Liner on its merits – r 147(1); driving Perfect Liner in a manner which in the opinion of the stewards was unacceptable – r 149(2); and, being a person employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry, behaving in a way that was prejudicial or detrimental to the industry – r 243.

The stewards provided particulars of each charge. As to the first – failing to race Perfect Liner on its merits – the particulars asserted that after the horse ‘paced roughly in the early stages’ Mr Bellamy then allowed it to improve to a position three wide, but then restrained it so as to maintain…

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 Racing Queensland Ltd v Bellamy 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: [2011] QCATA 30
Decision Date: 28 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by Racing Queensland Ltd against a decision that found various individuals and entities guilty of race fixing in harness racing. The dispute arose out of allegations that certain races were manipulated through bribery and other corrupt practices. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the primary decision-maker had erred in applying the appropriate standard of proof, had failed to consider each charge separately, or had not applied relevant principles of harness racing. The respondents, including various individuals and entities, argued that the findings were supported by the evidence and that the learned Member had properly exercised his discretion.

The court identified several legal issues that needed resolution. First, it was necessary to assess whether the learned Member had applied the correct standard of proof, particularly whether guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Second, the court had to consider whether the learned Member had erred by not giving separate consideration to each charge. Third, the court examined whether the learned Member had failed to apply relevant principles of harness racing. The respondents contended that the findings were open on the evidence, and the learned Member had exercised his discretion correctly.

In evaluating these issues, the court held that the learned Member had properly applied the standard of proof required, noting that the evidence supported the findings of guilt. The court also determined that while there may have been some overlap in the consideration of the charges, the finding of guilt was open on the evidence. Additionally, the court found that the learned Member had applied the relevant principles of harness racing, and therefore, the findings were not in error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds identified, and leave to appeal on all other grounds was refused. The court ordered that any party seeking costs should file and serve its submissions within 14 days, with the other party to file and serve its submissions within 7 days thereafter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 refused.

2. Leave to appeal on all other grounds refused.

3. Any party seeking costs should file and serve its submissions within 14 days; the other party will file and serve its submissions within 7 days thereafter.

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.