Wallace v Queensland Racing

Case [2007] QDC 168

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168

PARTIES:

JOHN WALLACE

Appellant

V

QUEENSLAND RACING

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal BD 1554/07

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 August 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2007

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed in part, the determination of the appeal against the penalty imposed by the stewards is remitted to the tribunal to hear and determine according to law; appeal otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INFERIOR TRIBUNALS – Racing Appeals Tribunal – nature of appeal to – need to decide penalty for itself

STATUTES – Interpretation – whether Chapter V of Criminal Code applies to offence under the Rules of Racing

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 7(1)

Criminal Code ss 2, 3, 36(1).

Racing Act 2002 ss 79, 91, 172(3).

Anderson v Nystrom [1941] St R Qd 56 – cited.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 – followed.
Geraldton Fishermen’s Co‑Op Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129 – cited.
Harmer v Grace, ex parte Harmer [1980] Qd R 395 – applied.
Harper v The Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia (No. 1963/93, 8/2/95, unreported; BC 9503397) – followed.
Hunt v Maloney, ex parte Hunt [1959] Qd R 164 – considered.
Irving v Gagliardi (1895) 6 QLJ 155 – cited.
Kehoe v Dacol Motors Pty Ltd, ex parte Dacol Motors Pty Ltd [1972] Qd R 59 – cited.
Larsen v G J Coles and Co Ltd, ex parte G J Coles and Co Ltd (1984) 13 A Crim R 109 – applied.
Molloy v Hallam [1903] St R Qd 282 – cited.
Pingel v R and R Leach Pty Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 533 – cited.
Pointon v Redcliffe Demolitions Pty Ltd (2002) 23 Qld Lawyer R 103 – considered.
R v Boudelah (1991) 28 FCR 176 – followed.
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parteAga Kahn [1993] 1 WLR 909 – cited.
R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397 – cited.
Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316 – cited.
Stevenson v Yasso [2006] 2 Qd R 150 – cited.
Thomas v McEather [1920] St R Qd 166 – cited.
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 – cited.

COUNSEL:

G. W. Diehm for the appellant

A. J. MacSporran SC and M. J. Taylor for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Butler McDermott for the appellant

Gabriel Ruddy and Garratt for the respondent

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal on 30 May 2007 to dismiss the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the stewards finding him guilty of a breach of AR 178 of the rules of racing and disqualifying him from training for six months.  The appeal to this court is under the Racing Act 2002 s 193, and may be brought only on a question of law.

Background facts

  1. The appellant was the trainer of a racehorse that was brought to a racecourse on the Gold Coast on Saturday 31 March…

Continue reading Wallace v Queensland Racing

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168
Case
[2007] QDC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wallace v Queensland Racing involved an appeal against a decision made by the Racing Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had reviewed a penalty imposed on Wallace by the stewards of a racing event, but had ultimately decided to confirm the penalty. Wallace sought further review of the penalty in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the Racing Appeals Tribunal had the authority to decide on the penalty itself, and whether Chapter V of the Criminal Code applied to offences under the Rules of Racing. The Court considered these issues in light of the relevant legislative provisions and case law.

The Court held that the Racing Appeals Tribunal did not have the authority to decide the penalty for itself. Instead, the Tribunal was required to hear and determine the appeal according to law. The Court also found that Chapter V of the Criminal Code did not apply to offences under the Rules of Racing, as the relevant provisions were not intended to apply to sporting offences. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in law in confirming the penalty imposed by the stewards, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the penalty imposed by the stewards. The Court dismissed the appeal in all other respects. The Court's decision highlights the importance of tribunals following the correct legal procedures when making decisions, and the need for careful interpretation of legislation to ensure that it applies to the correct circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed in part, the determination of the appeal against the penalty imposed by the stewards is remitted to the tribunal to hear and determine according to law; appeal otherwise dismissed.

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.