Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2021] QCAT 438

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438

PARTIES: RICKY JOHN VALE

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR209-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2021

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

The Internal Review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 8 July 2021 is set aside.

A decision is substituted that:

(a)   As to Charge One: Ricky John Vale breached Australian Racing Rule 228(b) on 10 June 2021 by making contact with Preston Smith, for which a monetary penalty of $1,000 is imposed.

(b)   As to Charge Two: Ricky John Vale breached Australian Racing Rule 228(b) on 10 June 2021 by making contact with Tyresse Smith, for which a monetary penalty of $1,000 is imposed.

(c)    As to Charge Three: Ricky John Vale did not breach Rule 228(b) on 10 June 2021 in making contact with Tony Smith by reasons of provocation and self-defence.

(d)   As to Charge Four: Ricky John Vale did not breach Rule 228(b) on 10 June 2021 as there is insufficient evidence that he made a threat to Tony Smith.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – principles applied –
fresh hearing on the merits – racing – allegations of misconduct, improper conduct and
unseemly conduct – physical altercation between
persons involved in the racing industry – whether defences of self-defence or provocation should be accepted – conflicting evidence

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS - where a licensed trainer involved in a physical altercation at the racetrack – charge of breach of Australian Racing Rules 228(b) - penalty

Australian Rules of Racing, r 228(b)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 245, s 268, s 269, s 270, s 271, s 272
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 21, s 25
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(b), s 9(1), s 17(1), s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24, s 66
Racing Act 2002 (Qld)

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 240, s 241, s 243, s 245, s 246

Bode v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board

[2016] QCAT 529
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
El-Issa v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCATA 280
Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814

Russell v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 329

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Mr M White of Counsel, instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers

Respondent:

Mr S McLeod QC, instructed by the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

Mr Vale is a licensed trainer within the thoroughbred racing industry in Queensland who, at the Rockhampton Jockey Club on 10 June 2021, was involved in physical and verbal altercations with Tony Smith, and his sons, Tyresse and Preston Smith.
The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (“QRIC”) is an independent statutory body, overseeing the integrity and welfare standards of racing animals and…

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 Vale 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: [2021] QCAT 438
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involves an application by Ricky John Vale for review of a decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) that found him guilty of four charges in breach of Australian Racing Rule 228(b) and imposed penalties. The charges related to Vale's involvement in physical and verbal altercations with Tony Smith, and his sons, Tyresse and Preston Smith, at the Rockhampton Jockey Club on 10 June 2021. The tribunal's role in these proceedings was to review the circumstances afresh and to produce the correct and preferable decision. The legal issues before the tribunal were whether Vale was justified or excused, or in other words, had a complete defence to the charges of misconduct on the basis that his actions were provoked and (or in the alternative) necessary as a matter of self-defence. The tribunal found that Vale was not acting in self-defence or in circumstances of provocation when he pushed Preston and Tyresse Smith and, therefore, the charges were made out. However, the tribunal found that Vale's use of force was reasonably necessary in circumstances where Smith had first caused contact with his head and where the two men were by that time pushing and shoving and where the use of arms may well have resulted in striking a bystander. If Smith was not provoked the question was whether the use of force was reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault and the tribunal found that it was. The tribunal also found that there was insufficient evidence that Vale made a threat to Tony Smith and, therefore, the charge was not made out. The tribunal set aside the decision of the QRIC and substituted a decision that Vale breached Australian Racing Rule 228(b) by making contact with Preston Smith and Tyresse Smith, for which a monetary penalty of $1,000 was imposed for each charge. The tribunal also found that Vale did not breach Rule 228(b) in making contact with Tony Smith by reasons of provocation and self-defence and that there was insufficient evidence that he made a threat to Tony Smith.

Orders