Vale v Queensland Racing - [2011] QCAT 642

CITATION:

Vale v Queensland Racing [2011] QCAT 642

PARTIES:	Mr Ricky John David Vale
v
Queensland Racing

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR181-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2011

HEARD AT:

Rockhampton

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe, Presiding Member
Philippa Beckinsale, Member

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The stewards’ decision to impose a penalty on Mr Vale is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

RACING – where elevated TCO2 levels – where procedure not followed strictly – whether substantial compliance with procedure – whether penalty appropriate

Racing Act 2002, s 325A

Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168
Taylor v Queensland Racing [2011] QCAT
Pomfrett v Racing Queensland [2011] QCAT 137

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	S Neaves, by direct brief
RESPONDENT:	A J Orchard, in-house counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Vale was the registered trainer of Rusty Hunter, which competed in Race 2 at Callaghan Park on 2 June 2011. Testing of a pre-race blood sample from Rusty Hunter revealed it had elevated levels of TCO2. The Stewards found Mr Vale in breach of ARR178 and disqualified him for nine months.

Mr Vale applied for a review of the Stewards’ decision on the basis that the method of collecting the blood sample was flawed. The two questions for determination by the tribunal[1] are:

a)Whether any action of Dr Williams had an adverse effect on Mr Vale’s opportunity to witness the sealing of the swab taken from Rusty Hunter.

b)The effect of the issues relating to the fact that the record of custody was signed by a person as sample collection official, not by the veterinarian responsible for its collection.

[1] Tribunal direction 22 September 2011.

Counsel for Mr Vale drew our attention to a number of specific complaints about the conduct of Dr Williams, the veterinarian. Mr Neaves says that Dr Williams:

a)Did not properly explain the collection procedure to Mr Vale.

b)Did not show Mr Vale that the plastic bag containing the sample equipment was intact.

c)Handled the vials used for collecting the sample in a way that gave rise to confusion and doubt.

d)When completing the procedure, placed himself in such a position that Mr Vale was unable to witness the procedure fully.

e)Did not give Mr Vale the opportunity to verify the sealed samples.

Because of the direction of 22 September 2011, we do not propose to consider the first three complaints about Dr Williams’ conduct in detail. We are mostly concerned with Dr Williams’ activities relating to the sealing of the swab.

The procedure for sealing the swab

It is true that Dr Williams did not explain the collection procedure to Mr Vale. When asked at the stewards’ inquiry whether he knew what the procedure was, Mr Vale answered “Well, I’m not an accredited vet, so not really.”[2] This is a disingenuous response as Mr Vale’s questioning of the witnesses demonstrates that he did know the procedure for testing:

a)He asked why there was only one swab attendant.[3]

b)He knew that…

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.

Continue reading Vale v Queensland Racing

Details

AGLC: Vale v Queensland Racing [2011] QCAT 642
Case: [2011] QCAT 642
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved Mr Vale, a participant in horse racing, and Queensland Racing, represented by the stewards of the commission. The stewards had imposed a penalty on Mr Vale after his horse was found to have elevated TCO2 levels post-race, a violation of racing rules. Mr Vale contested the penalty, arguing that while he had not strictly followed the prescribed procedure, he had substantially complied with it. The case before the court was to determine whether the stewards' decision to impose the penalty was appropriate.

The primary legal issue was whether Mr Vale's actions constituted substantial compliance with the rules, and if so, whether the penalty was appropriate. The court examined the racing rules and the procedural steps required to ensure compliance. It also considered the principle of substantial compliance in regulatory contexts, assessing whether Mr Vale's actions were sufficiently aligned with the rules to warrant a penalty. The court further examined the discretion of the stewards in imposing penalties and whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the infraction.

The court found that while Mr Vale had not followed the procedure exactly, his actions were substantially compliant. However, the court upheld the stewards' decision to impose the penalty, considering the importance of maintaining the integrity of the sport. The court emphasised the need for strict adherence to racing rules and the significant discretion of the stewards in disciplinary matters. The court concluded that the penalty was appropriate, given the circumstances and the importance of the rules in maintaining fair competition.

The court confirmed the stewards' decision to impose a penalty on Mr Vale, upholding the integrity of the sport and the authority of the stewards in disciplinary matters. The penalty was considered proportionate to the infraction, and the court found no grounds to overturn the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The stewards’ decision to impose a penalty on Mr Vale 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.