Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

CITATION: Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 447

PARTIES:	Alec James Stevens (Applicant)
v
Queensland Racing Intergrity Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR091-17

MATTER TYPE: General Review  

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Traves

DELIVERED ON: 7 December 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.     The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GAMING AND LIQUOR – ADMINISTRATION – RACING – RACING COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS – GREYHOUND RACING – decision made by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission to suspend an animal from racing under rule 69A of the Greyhounds Australasia Rules – whether decision is reviewable under
s 240(2)(b) of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether QCAT has jurisdiction

Greyhound Australasia Rules, rule 69A, rule 69B
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 33
Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 240 s 242,
s 243, s 245, s 246

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT: Alec James Stevens  

RESPONDENT: Queensland Racing Intergrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. On 9 August 2016 two Queensland Racing Integrity stewards at an Ipswich greyhound meeting made a decision to suspend Mr Alec Stevens’ greyhound, Magic Pass, from racing for 3 months. On 17 August 2016 Mr Stevens applied for internal review of that decision but the Racing Integrity Commission refused to conduct the internal review on the basis it was not a decision subject to its internal review processes.

2. Mr Stevens then applied to this Tribunal on 31 May 2017 for review of the stewards’ suspension decision.

3. The Commission maintains that a decision to suspend an animal is not subject to internal review and is not a reviewable decision pursuant to

   
   

   s 240(2)(b) of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) (RIA). Accordingly, the Commission maintains that Mr Steven’s application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. By Directions dated 19 June 2017, the issue as to whether the Tribunal should dismiss the review application for lack of jurisdiction was to be determined on the papers following receipt of written submissions by the parties.[1]

   [1]Submissions of the applicant dated 17 July 2017, Submissions of the respondent dated 19 September 2017.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review a decision to suspend an animal?

1. The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is that conferred on it by an enabling Act.[2]

   [2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 17(1).

2. The Tribunal can only exercise its review jurisdiction if a person has applied to the Tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision.[3]

   [3]QCAT Act, s 18(1).

3. “Reviewable decision” is defined by reference to s 17(2) of the QCAT Act. Section 17(2) provides that a decision mentioned in s 17(1) is a reviewable decision. Section 17(1) provides:

   The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.

4. Under s 33(3) of the QCAT Act,…