Rolls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

[2024] QCAT 406

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rolls v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2024] QCAT 406

PARTIES:

GAVIN ROLLS
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR008-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2024

HEARING DATE:

31 July 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1.   The internal review decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission on 4 October 2022 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – where application for thoroughbred trainer licence – where licence refused by respondent at internal review – where extensive criminal history – whether applicant fit and proper person to hold a licence – whether internal review decision should be confirmed

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 24, s 31

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 62, s 63, s 64, s 246

Siguenza v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure [2002] VSC 46

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

S Seefeld of counsel, instructed by D Silvester, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application, made pursuant to s 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) (‘the Act’), to review an internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (‘the respondent’) confirming an original decision to decline Mr Roll’s (‘the applicant’) application for a thoroughbred trainer licence. In essence, it was found that the applicant is not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold the licence, largely on the basis of a significant number of criminal convictions extending over some 26 years, including for offences of dishonesty.

2. Section 64(1) of the Act provides: ‘the commission must make a standard for a licensing scheme for each code of racing’. The relevant standard is the Standard for Licensing Scheme Thoroughbreds V2.03 (‘the Standard’). By s 62 of the Act, a standard is a statutory instrument.

3. The Standard sets out a licence application process and, at B1.3, provides: ‘An applicant must be assessed as a fit and proper person to be granted a licence’. As stated in Siguenza v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure:[1]

   It is clear from the authorities that the test of a ‘fit and proper person’ must depend, in each case, on the purpose of the legislation under which the test is being applied.

   [1][2002] VSC 46, [34].

4. The purposes of licensing schemes are set out at s 63 of the Act:

   The purposes of the licensing scheme for a code of racing are to ensure—

   (a)     the integrity of racing activities conducted as part of the code; and

   (b)     the safety of persons involved in racing or training licensed animals; and

   (c)     the welfare of licensed animals while involved in racing or training, or activities associated with racing or training; and

   (d)     the responsible breeding of horses for racing.

5. Standard B1.3 provides that to be considered ‘fit’, a person must, among other things:

   be able to display the appropriate level of mental fitness to make correct decisions in relation to behaviour by demonstrating a continuing moral commitment to good behaviour and good character.

6. In relation to the term ‘proper’ it is provided:

   The requirements to be considered “proper” relate to the general level of integrity of the person. Proper is primarily concerned with general behaviour and conduct inclusive of:

   ·        history;

   ·        reputation;

   ·        integrity;

   ·        honesty; and

   ·        character.

7. It is further provided that ‘propriety’ will be assessed on the basis of general behaviour and conduct and, in particular, any evidence of a number of listed factors. Four of those factors are:

   ·        any previous acts of dishonesty by the applicant or an executive officer of the applicant;

   ·        an ability of the applicant, and any executive officers of the applicant, to consistently operate within the requirements of the racing legislation, a Standard, policies of RQ, the Rules of Racing and any other laws and regulations in the State of Queensland, another State, or the Commonwealth, including any gambling and gaming legislation;

   ·        bad behaviour and/or misconduct by the applicant, or an executive officer of the applicant, including police records, court records and letters of complaint regarding the licence holder;

   ·        where a licence holder or applicant for a licence has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offence in Queensland, any state or territory of Australia or in any other country.

8. Standard B1.4 then provides (emphasis added):

   The Commission may deem that a person is not a “fit” and “proper” person if:

   ·        the applicant has been convicted of an offence (the conviction), and the conviction remains on the licence holder’s criminal record, which relates to:

   odishonesty, fraud, forgery, match-fixing;

   oanimal welfare or cruelty to animals;

   otrafficking or supply of drugs, illicit or illegal substances; and

   ·        the criminal activity that led to the conviction occurred prior to 1 July 2016.

   An applicant will not be granted a licence if:

   ·        the applicant has been convicted of an offence (the conviction), and the conviction remains on the licence holder’s criminal record, which relates to:

   odishonesty, fraud, forgery, match-fixing;

   oanimal welfare or cruelty to animals;

   otrafficking or supply of drugs, illicit or illegal substances; and

   ·        the criminal activity that led to the conviction occurred after 1 July 2016.

1. Standard B1.4 also provides:

   All convictions, whether against a law of Queensland or another State, stated in a National Police Certificate, will be considered relevant to the application for a licence. An offence committed over ten (10) years ago may also be considered relevant to the broader assessment of whether an applicant is “fit” and “proper” to be granted a licence.

2. The applicant has convictions for fraud and dishonesty relating to conduct that occurred prior to 1 July 2016, but not after that date. Accordingly, mandatory refusal of a licence does not arise in the present case.

3. The criminal history of the applicant is extensive. On 20 separate occasions, between 1996 and 2022, he has been convicted of offences in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, on a number of those occasions for multiple offences. The offences include serious assault, aggravated assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst armed/in company, assault or obstruct police officer, domestic violence, contravention of domestic violence orders, break and enter dwelling house, forcible entry, wilful damage, fraud, false pretences, make/furnish a statement which is false/misleading, stealing, receive/dispose stolen property, failure to appear, breach of bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs, and producing dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on eight separate occasions.

4. In support of his application, the applicant filed a number of references that speak of his passion for horses, capacity for hard work and general good character. However, none of the referees indicate any knowledge of the applicant’s criminal history, which somewhat diminishes what they say as to his character. One of his referees gave oral evidence and said in cross-examination that he was not aware of the applicant’s criminal history.

5. As noted above in relation to the Standard, in determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, relevant issues include the applicant’s honesty, integrity, criminal history, any acts of dishonesty, their capacity to operate within the law, and the ability to ‘display the appropriate level of mental fitness to make correct decisions in relation to behaviour by demonstrating a continuing moral commitment to good behaviour and good character’.

6. The criminal history of the applicant tends to suggest an unwillingness or inability to operate within the law. That history is both significant and recent. Relevant to the Standard, it includes offences of dishonesty and fraud. Also, as stated in the internal review decision:

   Being a thoroughbred trainer involves more than looking after horses. It requires the Applicant to attend training tracks and race meetings with other licensees and to engage with the general public. A thoroughbred trainer must possess mental fortitude and incredible patience to enable them to endure difficult persons, difficult situations, financial difficulties and to manage stress without resorting to violence.

7. For the reasons outlined, and by reference to the Act and the Standard, the applicant does not meet the requirements to be ‘fit and proper’ to hold the relevant licence.

8. In making that decision, I have considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘the HRA’), in particular s 24 property rights and s 31 right to a fair hearing. With reference to s 13 of the HRA, the refusal of the licence is justifiable in the context of the purposes of the licensing scheme, which include, at s 63 of the Act, to ensure ‘the integrity of racing activities conducted as part of the code’.

9. Accordingly, the internal review decision made on 4 October 2022 is confirmed.

10. It is noted, and confirmed by the respondent, that there is nothing in the Act or the Standard that requires a person to wait for a specified period of time after an application for a licence has been refused before reapplying for a licence.