Webb v Racing Queensland Limited - [2011] QCAT 44

CITATION:		Webb v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 44
PARTIES:	Mr Mark Webb
v
Racing Queensland Limited

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR267-10

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

28 January 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Richard Oliver, Presiding Member
Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to review will be allowed.

2. The decision of Racing Queensland made on the 25 October 2010 is set aside.

3. The applicant is fined $15,000.00 for a breach of AR 178 on 24 July 2010.

4. The applicant is fined $15,000.00 for a breach of AR 178 on 31 July 2010.

CATCHWORDS :

Racing – presenting horse with prohibited substance in breach of AR 178 – where applicant has provided evidence of outside interference – where evidence sufficient to exculpate applicant from blameworthiness – where lack of security and whether this constitutes blameworthiness – where 4 month disqualification on each count set aside.

Queensland Civil and Administration Act 2009 section 22.
Wallace v Queensland Racing (2007) QDC 168 followed.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT :	The applicant represented by Mr F Martin of counsel instructed by Greenhow & Yeates.
RESPONDENT:	The respondent represented by Mr A J Orchard solicitor of Racing Queensland Ltd.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Oliver

Introduction

Australian Racing Rule 176 renders a trainer or any other person in charge of a horse liable to a penalty if a prohibited substance is detected in a sample taken from the horse either before or following it’s running in any race. Implicit in the rule is an obligation on a trainer to take reasonable and proper precautions to ensure that horses trained by the trainer are presented to the track for racing free of prohibited substances.

Primed was a racehorse trained by the applicant Mr Webb. A prohibited substance was detected in a samples taken from Primed after racing on both the 24 July 2010 and 31 July 2010. The certificates of analysis of the samples were published on 9 August 2010 and 20 August 2010 respectively confirming the presence of two drugs, flunixin in the first and ibuprofen and flunixin in the second.

At a Stewards Inquiry held on 25 October 2010 at Toowoomba, Mr Webb accepted responsibility for presenting the horse with the prohibited substance on both occasions. However, he contended that no penalty should have been imposed because there was persuasive evidence before the stewards for them to conclude that Primed had been interfered with by an unknown third party.

The stewards did not consider the evidence persuasive and disqualified Mr Webb from training for a period of 4 months on both counts, but to be served concurrently.

On 27 October 2010 Mr Webb filed an application to review the decision of Racing Queensland in respect of the penalty imposed.

Background

When Mr Webb was notified of the first positive swab of flunixin on 10 August 2010 in relation to the race on 24 July, he was in fact 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.

Continue reading Webb v Racing Queensland Limited

Details

AGLC: Webb v Racing Queensland Limited [2011] QCAT 44
Case: [2011] QCAT 44
Decision Date: 16 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webb v Racing Queensland Limited involved the applicant, Mr. Webb, who contested the decision of Racing Queensland to disqualify him for presenting a horse that contained a prohibited substance. This incident occurred on two separate occasions: 24 July 2010 and 31 July 2010. Racing Queensland found Mr. Webb in breach of AR 178, which pertains to the presentation of horses with prohibited substances, and imposed a four-month disqualification on each count. The applicant sought a review of this decision, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the presence of the prohibited substance was due to external interference, and that the lack of security did not necessarily equate to blameworthiness on his part.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented by Mr. Webb was sufficient to exculpate him from blameworthiness for the breaches of AR 178. The primary issue was whether the presence of the prohibited substance in the horse was due to external interference, thereby absolving Mr. Webb of any fault. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the lack of security at the premises constituted blameworthiness on the part of the applicant. The court also needed to assess whether the penalty imposed by Racing Queensland was proportionate to the breaches.

In its decision, the court found that Mr. Webb had provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that the presence of the prohibited substance was due to external interference. The court held that this evidence was sufficient to exculpate Mr. Webb from blameworthiness. Furthermore, the court noted that the lack of security did not necessarily indicate fault on the part of the applicant. Consequently, the court set aside the four-month disqualification imposed by Racing Queensland. However, the court found Mr. Webb guilty of the breaches of AR 178 and imposed a fine of $15,000 on each count. The decision to review was allowed, and the original decision of Racing Queensland was set aside.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application for review and set aside the decision of Racing Queensland. The applicant was found to be in breach of AR 178 on both occasions but was not held blameworthy due to the evidence of external interference. The court imposed a fine of $15,000 on each count, and the four-month disqualification was set aside. This decision highlights the importance of providing evidence of external interference and the impact it can have on determining blameworthiness in cases involving prohibited substances in racing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to review will be allowed.

2. The decision of Racing Queensland made on the 25 October 2010 is set aside.

3. The applicant is fined $15,000.00 for a breach of AR 178 on 24 July 2010.

4. The applicant is fined $15,000.00 for a breach of AR 178 on 31 July 2010.

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.