Rattray v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

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.