Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2018] QCATA 39

CITATION:	Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2018] QCATA 39
PARTIES:	Kenneth Lindsay Rattray (Appellant)
v
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL429-16
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
HEARING DATE:	29 August 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Judge Sheridan, Acting President Member King-Scott
DELIVERED ON:	10 April 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The respondent file and serve any submissions supporting any application for the tribunal to make an order of costs by 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 17 April 2018. 3. The appellant file and serve any submissions in reply by 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 24 April 2018.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – ASSOCIATES AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONTROL RULE BREACH – Australian Harness Racing Rules – Interpretation – Appeal on questions of law – Where appellant convicted of contravention of the Australian Harness Racing Rules – Where appellant entered a plea of guilty at Stewards Inquiry – Where appellant sought internal and external review of conviction and penalty – Where appellant remains aggrieved by conviction – Where no formal application of withdrawal of plea of guilty – Whether method of analysis of urine samples in compliance with Australian Harness Racing Rules – Whether valid agreement between controlling body and accredited facility – Whether analysts lawfully approved – Whether evidentiary value of certifications of analysis is lessened if non-compliance – Whether a conviction entered on the basis of a guilty plea may be set aside Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 27A(3) Australian Harness Racing Rules 1999, r 181, r 190, r 191, r 191(1), r 191(2) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 9AH, s 9AZ, s 115, s 131, s 132, s 143, 147, s359, s 412, s 427 Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors v Tynan & Anor [2013] QCA 256, considered Kavanagh v Racing Victoria Ltd [2017] VCAT 386, considered Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, considered Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Colahan [2015] QCATA 46, considered R v Dobie [2010] QCA 34, considered Racing Victoria Ltd v Kavanagh [2017] VSCA 334, considered
APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT:	J E Murdoch QC instructed by O’Connor Ruddy & Garrett Solicitors
RESPONDENT:	J M Horton QC, with A Hellewell, instructed by the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Rattray, the appellant in these proceedings and applicant in the initial review proceedings (the appellant), is a licensed harness racing trainer. On 25 August 2016, he was charged with having breached r 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) which provided:
A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
Rule 190(2) provides that if a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with r 190(1), the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence.
The particulars…

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 Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission 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: [2018] QCATA 39
Decision Date: 10 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, brought proceedings against the appellant, Rattray, for a breach of the Australian Harness Racing Rules. The appellant was found to have contravened a control rule by testing positive for a prohibited substance. The appellant pleaded guilty at the Stewards Inquiry and subsequently sought both internal and external review of the conviction and penalty. Despite these reviews, the appellant remained dissatisfied with the outcome and sought further appeal on questions of law. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found in favour of the respondent, and the appellant appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal revolved around the validity of the appellant's conviction. The appellant argued that the analysis of the urine samples was not in compliance with the Australian Harness Racing Rules, which raised questions about the validity of the agreement between the controlling body and the accredited facility, the lawfulness of the analysts, and the evidentiary value of the certifications of analysis. Additionally, the appellant contended that a conviction entered on the basis of a guilty plea may be set aside if there is a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the tribunal had correctly considered the issues and applied the relevant principles of law. The Court held that the tribunal's decision was not affected by any errors in law, and there was no basis to set aside the conviction. The Court found that the method of analysis of the urine samples was in compliance with the Australian Harness Racing Rules, and the agreement between the controlling body and the accredited facility was valid. Furthermore, the analysts were lawfully approved, and the certifications of analysis had sufficient evidentiary value. The Court also held that a conviction entered on the basis of a guilty plea could not be set aside unless there was a substantial miscarriage of justice, which was not the case here.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the respondent to file and serve any submissions supporting an application for the tribunal to make an order of costs by a specified date. The appellant was ordered to file and serve any submissions in reply by a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The respondent file and serve any submissions supporting any application for the tribunal to make an order of costs by 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 17 April 2018.

3. The appellant file and serve any submissions in reply by 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 24 April 2018.

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.