Racing Victoria Ltd v Kavanagh

Racing Victoria Ltd appealed against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed charges against two trainers for causing cobalt to be administered to horses in violation of racing rules. The Tribunal had ruled that proof of knowledge or awareness was necessary to establish an offence under the Racing Act 1958, and that the certification procedure for laboratory findings was not the exclusive means of proving such offences. The appeal concerned the interpretation of certain provisions within the Racing Act and the Australian Rules of Racing, particularly those related to the proof of prohibited substances in urine samples.

The court was required to decide whether the offence of causing prohibited substances to be administered to horses was an absolute offence, requiring no proof of knowledge or awareness, or if such proof was necessary. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the certification of laboratory findings constituted the exclusive means of proving the presence of prohibited substances, or if other forms of evidence could be used. The interpretation of relevant sections within the Racing Act and the Australian Rules of Racing, particularly AR 178D, was central to the determination of these issues.

The court found that the offence in question was indeed an absolute one, not requiring proof of knowledge or awareness. However, it also held that the certification procedure for laboratory findings was not the exclusive means of proving the offence. The court ruled that AR 178D implied the existence of alternative means of proof, and that the certification procedure did not exclude the use of other evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and remitting the matter for reconsideration in light of these findings.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed in part, with the charges against the trainers to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. The court's decision clarified the legal standards required for proving certain racing offences and affirmed the availability of alternative evidence in addition to certified laboratory findings. This ruling has implications for future proceedings involving similar charges under the Racing Act and the Australian Rules of Racing.