Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2016] QCAT 439

CITATION:	Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2016] QCAT 439
PARTIES:	Ken Leslie Rattray (Applicant)
v
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR150-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member P Roney QC
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The Respondent’s decision that the Applicant was in breach of Rule 190 of the AHRR is confirmed. 2. The Respondent’s decision that the Applicant be disqualified for a period of six months is set aside and in lieu thereof that he be disqualified for a period of four months from 25 August 2016
CATCHWORDS:	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – HARNESS RACING. CONTRAVENTION OF AUSTRALIAN HARNESS RACING RULE 190. Failure to present a horse for a race three prohibited substances; interpretation of section 191 of the Australian Harness Racing Rules as to the effect of evidentiary certificates; Whether on the proper construction of Rule 191 the rule does not permit or constitute reliance upon Certificates of Analysis as prima facie evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance; Where the Certificates of Analysis were issued by the same laboratory, albeit by different analysts; Whether there was evidence as to whether the analysts who conducted the analysis of a reserve urine sample was approved by a Controlling Body in the requisite sense; Circumstances in which a conviction entered on the basis of a guilty plea may be set aside. Appropriate penalty, whether six month’s disqualification a trainer’s licence is excessive. Australian Harness Racing Rules, R190, 191 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s.20 Racing Act 2002, s.4, 6, 7, 131, 132, 147, 191 Racing Queensland v Cullen [2011] QCAT 393 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2000] QCATA 58 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board v Colahan [2015] QCATA 46 R v Dobie [2010] QCA 34
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Mr J Murdoch QC instructed by O’Connor, Ruddy and Garrett appeared for the Applicant
RESPONDENT:	Mr J Horton QC instructed by Allens Linklater Lawyers appeared for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The Applicant is a horse trainer of many decades’ experience. On Saturday 7 May 2016, the Applicant raced his horse Destreos (NZ) at Albion Park in Brisbane. The horse was poorly placed in that race. A pre-race urine sample had been taken from the gelding prior to the race, and that sample was found, upon analysis, to contain the prohibited substances Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone. Those substances are well known in the racing industry, and commonly referred to as “bute”. They constitute a medically recognised, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, essentially intended for veterinary use to reduce swelling. They are not to be present however when a horse races.
It is common ground that a cabinet holding a medicine called Nabutone, which included the substance was found in his stables well after the event, however the Applicant disputes knowing that the substance had been administered to the…

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: [2016] QCAT 439
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, Mr Rattray, a harness racing trainer, contested the decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that he had contravened Rule 190 of the Australian Harness Racing Rules by failing to present a horse for a race that had three prohibited substances in its system. The case hinged on the interpretation of Rule 191, which pertains to the admissibility of Certificates of Analysis as evidence. The tribunal was required to decide whether Rule 191 permitted reliance on such certificates as prima facie evidence and whether the certificates issued by different analysts from the same laboratory met the necessary criteria. Furthermore, the tribunal had to determine the appropriate penalty for the breach, considering whether a six-month disqualification of the applicant’s trainer’s licence was excessive.

The tribunal began by examining the language of Rule 191, focusing on whether it allowed for the use of Certificates of Analysis as prima facie evidence. It found that the rule did not explicitly permit such reliance and that the certificates, even if issued by the same laboratory, did not automatically constitute sufficient evidence. The tribunal then considered the qualifications of the analysts who conducted the tests, noting that there was no evidence to confirm that these analysts were approved by a Controlling Body in the required manner. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the conviction based on the certificates was not valid. Regarding the penalty, the tribunal concluded that a six-month disqualification was disproportionate and set aside the decision, substituting it with a four-month disqualification starting from 25 August 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent’s decision that the Applicant was in breach of Rule 190 of the AHRR is confirmed.

2. The Respondent’s decision that the Applicant be disqualified for a period of six months is set aside and in lieu thereof that he be disqualified for a period of four months from 25 August 2016

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.