Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2022] QCAT 242

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Smyth v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 242

PARTIES:

KERROD SMYTH

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR175-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2022

17 May 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

ORDERS:

The decision of Queensland Racing Integrity Commission of 11 June 2021 confirming the decision of the Stewards who found Kerrod Smyth breached the Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 and imposed a penalty of disqualification of Mr Smyth’s licence for six (6) months from 23 May 2021 to 23 November 2021 is set aside and the following decision is substituted:

The charge that Kerrod Smyth breached Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 is not substantiated.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – where licensed trainer of a horse received money from the jockey who was to ride the horse in a race – where licensed trainer placed a bet on the horse– where horse did not win or place – where steward’s inquiry into alleged bets placed on the horse – where jockey accepted and pleaded guilty to a charge – where licensed trainer charged and found guilty for breach of Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 – where penalty imposed by the stewards – where trainer applied for an internal review – where decision upheld on internal review – where trainer applies for external review – whether charge proven

Australian Rules of Racing, AR 236

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 23

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Ball v Queensland All Code Racing Industry Board [2020] QCATA 115

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Assistant Commissioner Ross Barnett [2010] QCAT 690
Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCATA 125

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Kadniak [2017] QCATA 102

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

White, MD instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers

Respondent:

Farnden, SJ instructed by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 18 December 2020, the horse ‘Lily ofthe Glen’ (the horse) finished unplaced at Rockhampton Jockey Club in Race 3. The horse was ridden by licensed jockey Nigel Seymour.
Mr Smyth, the horse’s licensed trainer, was charged with a breach of Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 that he placed a bet of $200 for Mr Seymour on the horse in Race 3.
Mr Smyth disputed the charge and appeared by telephone at a number of hearings before the stewards. Mr Seymour was also present for some of the hearing below. Mr Seymour was charged and disciplined after pleading guilty to having an interest in two bets when he rode the horse under AR 115(1)(e).
Mr Smyth was found guilty of a breach of AR 236 and disciplined by the stewards.
Following an internal review, the Commission confirmed the stewards’ decision that Mr Smyth is guilty of the charge…

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 Smyth 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: [2022] QCAT 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kerrod Smyth, a licensed horse trainer, was charged with breaching Australian Rules of Racing AR 236 after he placed a bet on a horse that was to be ridden by Nigel Seymour in a race. The stewards found Mr Smyth guilty and he was disciplined. Following an internal review, the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission confirmed the stewards' decision and imposed a penalty of disqualification of his licence for 6 months. Mr Smyth applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Commission’s decision. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the charge against Mr Smyth was substantiated. The Tribunal found that on 16 December 2020, Mr Seymour gave Mr Smyth $200 with the intention that Mr Smyth place a bet to win of $200 on the horse. Mr Smyth says that he told Mr Seymour on three separate occasions that he would not be placing the bet. Mr Smyth’s wife and daughter gave evidence that Mr Smyth placed a bet on 17 December 2020 on behalf of his wife. The Tribunal found that the charge against Mr Smyth was not substantiated and ordered that the decision of the Commission be set aside and a substituted decision be made that the charge against Mr Smyth was not substantiated.

Orders