Thomas v Racing Queensland Limited - [2012] QCAT 436

CITATION:

Thomas v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QCAT 436

PARTIES:	Darryl Thomas (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Racing Queensland Limited (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR208-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Senior Member
William LeMass, Member

DELIVERED ON:

14 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Stewards is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

Racing – where disqualified person on licensed premises – where false and misleading information given to Stewards – where routine stable inspection – whether Stewards conducting an investigation under AHRR 187

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Darryl Thomas represented by Mr Neave of counsel

RESPONDENT:

Racing Queensland Limited represented by Mr Farquahson

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Thomas is a disqualified harness racing trainer from New South Wales. Prior to his disqualification in October 2011, he had been a licensed trainer for some 10 years. On 18 May 2012 Mr Thomas was at the registered training stables of David Bond at Quinzeh Road, Logan Village. Whilst there, Mr Thomas was confronted by two Racing Queensland Stewards, Mr Wilson and Mr McLune who were carrying out a random inspection of stables in the Logan Village area. Mr Thomas knew, as a disqualified trainer that he was not allowed, under Australian Harness Racing Rule 259(1)(g), to enter any premises used for the purposes of the harness racing industry.
The Stewards charged him with a breach of Rule 259(1)(g) and after an inquiry conducted on 31 May 2012 he was found guilty of the charge and disqualified from holding a trainer’s license for 12 months such disqualification to be served concurrently with his previous disqualification in October 2011 in New South Wales.
Stewards also charged Mr Thomas with a breach of AHRR 187(2) in that he failed to be truthful with Stewards and answer questions as a result of their investigation as to his reason for being at the stables. He was found guilty of that charge and a fine of $2,000 was imposed.
On 12 June 2012 Mr Thomas filed an application to review the Stewards’ decision in respect of both charges and the penalties imposed. By the time the matter came on for hearing, Mr Thomas accepted that he had breached AHRR 259 but still maintained that the penalty imposed was excessive.
In respect of the breach of AHRR 187 Mr Thomas’ contention is that the Rule does not apply because information given to the Stewards by Mr Thomas whilst at the licensed stables was not in the course of an “inquiry or investigation”. It is not contested that Mr Thomas did give the Stewards a false name and did not cooperate with them but chose to leave the premises at the earliest opportunity.
The Stewards had arrived at the property early on the morning of 18 May and noticed a group of people standing around the tie up area near the stables. They also noticed a New South Wales licensed truck parked at the entrance to the stables. After observing the property for about 30 minutes, they then walked up to the stables and firstly spoke to a licensed stable hand Alek Johnson. They then continued up to where horses were tied up and spoke to a woman who identified herself as Darlene Thomas. She was in fact the mother of the applicant. She told the Stewards that she was in charge of the horses and at that point they enquired of the identity of the male person next to her. She told the Stewards that the person was Max Deckert, her partner.
At that point, the Stewards noticed the male person walking away from them and they instructed Ms Thomas to ask him to return so they could identify him. He came up to Mr Wilson and Mr McLune and they asked him whether he held a license. He replied in the negative and identified himself as the partner of Darlene Thomas and introduced himself as Max Deckert.
There were further conversations with Ms Thomas and while this was going on, the male person moved away and headed for the truck. Very soon after the truck started up and left.
The Stewards, obviously suspicious of the circumstances of the male individual’s departure, told Ms Thomas the importance of cooperating with the Stewards and asked her to tell the truth about the identity of the individual. She then told the Stewards it was her son Darryl Thomas, the applicant.
Soon after that, there was a conversation between Ms Thomas and the applicant where she informed him, in the presence of the Stewards that she had told the Stewards who he was and he should talk to them. There was a conversation between Mr Thomas and Mr Wilson in which he asked Mr Thomas to come back to the stables rather than meet at the local shop. An arrangement was reached whereby they would meet at the front of the property.
Mr Thomas did return to the property, and there was a discussion about why he gave a false name to which he replied, that he was supporting his mother. Mr Thomas acknowledged that as a disqualified person he was not permitted to enter registered premises and he went on to say, he was there to pick up the truck and simply wanted to speak with his mother. Stewards then informed him that there would be an inquiry into his conduct.
The inquiry was held on 31 May 2012. During the course of the inquiry, Mr Thomas generally agreed with the version of events that occurred on the morning of 18 May by responding to the chairman’s question about whether Mr Wilson’s record of those events was accurate by saying, “that was pretty close, yeah.” Mr Thomas’ excuse for giving a false name was that he didn’t know that Mr Wilson and Mr McLune were Stewards and thought they could have been criminals who ransacked his house. He was concerned for his safety and wanted to get away from the premises as quickly as possible. He also contended that he was entitled to be on licensed premises because he had prior permission from Racing New South Wales to visit premises to deliver feed.
He did not consider it a breach of the rule to firstly go to the premises to collect the truck, and secondly to visit his mother.
During the inquiry, the Stewards called Ms Alex Johnson, a stable hand at the property. She told the inquiry that she had spoken to Mr Thomas some days before 18 May. She knew that Mr Thomas was a disqualified person because she had been told as much by Ms Thomas. When she spoke with Mr Thomas, she stressed to him that he should not come on the property because she wanted to do “the right thing” and repeated “please do not come on the property”. She actually thought, when she met Mr Thomas on the Friday morning before the Stewards arrived, that she was speaking to Max Deckert because, similarly, he did not disclose to her his true identity.
The Stewards did not accept Mr Thomas’ explanation for his conduct at the stables and found him in breach of both rules.
Mr Thomas says that the Stewards’ random inspection of the stables was not an investigation for the purposes of Rule 187(2). He contends that for the rule to be enlivened, the applicant must be made aware firstly, that those asking the questions are in fact the Stewards from Racing Queensland and secondly, there is something to investigate. A routine stable inspection does not fall within this category. Racing Queensland contends that any routine stable inspection is itself, an “investigation” to determine whether or not the licensee or those at the premises are compliant with the rules of harness racing. The very purpose of the inspection is to investigate to ensure compliance. We agree with Racing Queensland that as the body charged with the administration of racing in the State it has multiple functions in that role which includes stable inspections. In undertaking that task, even if it can be described as routine, it would fall within the ambit of what is contemplated by AHRR 187(2). In addition, if this is regarded as being too wide, when Stewards started to question Mr Thomas about his presence at the stable, this would fall within what is contemplated by “investigation” within the rule.
It is true that the Stewards did not specifically identify themselves as Stewards from Racing Queensland. In fact, there wasn’t sufficient time to do that because Mr Thomas after giving a false name, immediately left the premises. We are told that the Stewards were wearing clothing which had the Racing Queensland logo which would indicate to anyone closely associated with the industry that they were Stewards. We also take into account that Mr Thomas was intent on deceiving the Stewards because that is consistent with his conduct in attempting to deceive the stable hand, Ms Johnson, by holding himself out to be Mr Deckert.
We treat with extreme caution his contention that he was trying to avoid persons who broke into his premises because the premises that were broken into were owned by Mr Deckert. He would hardly be identifying himself with the owner of those premises. We do not accept Mr Thomas’ reasons for giving a false name nor leaving the premises with such urgency. He did not even say goodbye to his mother, he just slipped away trying not to be noticed by the Stewards. Therefore, we reject Mr Thomas’ contentions and confirm the Stewards’ decision in respect of the breach of Rule 187(2).
In respect of the penalty for both breaches we say at the outset that the penalties imposed are clearly at the higher end of the range but we cannot ignore Mr Thomas’ attempts at deception and his misleading conduct. As we have pointed out, not only did he tell lies to the Stewards, he also lied to those at the stable complex thereby putting them at risk of investigation and penalty.
The requirement by Rule 187 not to give false or misleading evidence or information to Stewards is to ensure the integrity of the racing industry is maintained. The Stewards, and the industry, rely on the integrity, honesty and forthrightness of licensees to assist them to properly administer their obligations under the Racing Act 2002 so that the industry does not fall into disrepute.
Considering the penalties imposed afresh, we see no reason in these exceptional circumstances to vary the Stewards’ decision therefore, their decision on penalty is confirmed.