Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2019] QCAT 86

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 86

PARTIES:

BONNIE LOUISE THOMSON
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR128-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2019

HEARING DATES:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

ORDERS:

The internal review decision IR0040-18 of 15 May 2018 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLING – where jockey found to have breached Australian Rules of Racing 137(a) on internal review – where decision by consent to limit review to a review on penalty – appropriate penalty

Australian Rules of Racing, rule 137(a)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24
Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

A Turner, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

APPEARANCES

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction

On 19 April 2018, Ms Thomson was found guilty of a breach of Rule 137(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing in relation to her ride that day in Race 6 on One Bar None at the Townsville Turf Club.
Rule 137(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing provides, relevantly:
Any rider may be penalised if, in the opinion of the Stewards,
(a) he is guilty of careless, reckless, improper, incompetent or foul riding.
The stewards found Ms Thomson guilty of careless riding in that near the 750 metre mark she had permitted her horse to shift in when not sufficiently clear of Platinum Tycoon, which resulted in that horse being taken inwards onto Man Around Town, which in turn was taken inwards onto Rivariva, causing both horses to be checked. The stewards said, in arriving at a penalty:
On a minor or low range we start from 10 to 12 days. Mid range is 13 to 17 days.
With everything going on around with the matter, we could deem it a mid-range incident, however, as I say, what outweighs that is your usual very good riding record…and we believe that a fair and just penalty in this particular incident will be one of 7 days.[1]
[1]Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, Transcript of proceedings, 19 April 2018, 13.
The stewards ultimately, therefore, treated the interference by Ms Thomson as a low range incident of careless riding and imposed a penalty of a seven day suspension.
When considering the penalty, the stewards took into account:
(i)      Ms Thomson’s exemplary disciplinary history in relation to Rule 137(a);
(ii)     the degree of carelessness;
(iii)     the interference suffered;
(iv)    Ms Thomson’s not guilty plea; and
(v)     the penalty precedents for breaches of Rule 137(a).
This decision to suspend Ms Thomson for seven days for a breach of Rule 137(a) was confirmed on internal review on…

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 Thomson 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: [2019] QCAT 86
Decision Date: 1 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, the appellant, a jockey, challenged the decision of the respondent to suspend his licence and impose a fine following a finding that he had breached Rule 137(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing. The matter was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which was tasked with reviewing the internal review decision of the respondent. The appellant argued that the penalty imposed was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the penalty imposed by the respondent was appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed by the appellant. The court had to consider the nature of the breach, the appellant's conduct, and the principles of proportionality and fairness in determining whether the penalty was appropriate. The court was also required to consider whether the respondent had exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing the penalty.

The court found that the penalty imposed by the respondent was appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed by the appellant. The court noted that the appellant had breached a fundamental rule of racing and had acted in a manner that was detrimental to the integrity of the sport. The court also found that the respondent had exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing the penalty, taking into account the relevant factors and principles. The court concluded that the penalty was neither excessive nor disproportionate, and that the respondent had acted within its powers in imposing the penalty.

The tribunal confirmed the internal review decision, upholding the penalty imposed by the respondent. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the penalty imposed by the respondent remains in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

The internal review decision IR0040-18 of 15 May 2018 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Thomson v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2019] QCAT 86
PARTIES:	BONNIE LOUISE THOMSON (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR128-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	1 April 2019
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
DECISION OF:	Member Traves
ORDERS:	The internal review decision IR0040-18 of 15 May 2018 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLING – where jockey found to have breached Australian Rules of Racing 137(a) on internal review – where decision by consent to limit review to a review on penalty – appropriate penalty Australian Rules of Racing, rule 137(a) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246 Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	A Turner, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
APPEARANCES
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).