Suli v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Suli v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2024] QCAT 149

PARTIES:

ANDREW GEORGE SULI

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR096-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

6 December 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kent

ORDERS:

1.     The application for review is dismissed.

2.     The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 21 April 2022 to impose two (2) 12-month disqualifications, with six (6) months wholly suspended for 12 months, to be served concurrently, is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – RACING CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS – where greyhound trainer failed to present dogs free of prohibited substances – where admitted failure to present a dog free of prohibited substances – where urine sample above the permitted threshold of a prohibited substance (Cobalt) – whether the appropriate penalty was suspension or some lesser penalty

Greyhounds Australasia Rules, (then) rule 83(2)(a)

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

Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018] QCAT

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146
Darrel Graham v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCATA 125
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Scott [2019] QCATA 125
Hooper v QRIC [2017] QCAT 236
in Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168
Nicholl v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023]
Waldron v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] QCAT 191

Racing Victoria v Mitchell Freedman, 22 December 2021

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	R Anderson KC, instructed by D Silvester, Legal Services, QRIC

REASONS FOR DECISION

Nature of Review

1. On 25 October 2022 the Tribunal issued the following direction: “This application is to proceed to a hearing in relation to the issue of penalty only”. Consequently, this matter was a review for the purpose of penalty only. A considerable proportion of the material filed, and the evidence given by the applicant and his witness, did not directly address penalty. Due to the nature of the material filed by the applicant, the respondent was placed in a position of responding to the applicant’s irrelevant material that did not go to penalty. Both parties indicated at the commencement of the hearing that they were aware that the only issue for the Tribunal to determine was that of penalty. I indicated to both parties that I would restrict my consideration to the issue of penalty only and these reasons address the issue of penalty only.

Summary of Events

1. Mr Suli is a licensed greyhound trainer. He was the trainer of two greyhounds called Lines, who competed in a race at Rockhampton Greyhound Racing Club on 6 October 2021, and Rockstar Lincoln, who competed in a race at Rockhampton Greyhound Racing Club 27 October 2021.

2. When both greyhounds were presented at the Rockhampton Greyhound Racing Club to compete in races on the dates referred to above urine pre-race samples were taken from the animals. Subsequently, upon analysis both urine samples were found to contain a prohibited substance,…