Weeks v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2017] QCAT 345

CITATION:	Weeks v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 345
PARTIES:	Darren Gordon Weeks (Applicant)
v
Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR 213-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	4 October 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Olding
DELIVERED ON:	11 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. The decision that the Applicant breached rule 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) is confirmed. 2. The decision to impose a penalty of disqualification for 15 months is set a side and substituted with a decision that: a) The Applicant is disqualified for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of this order. b) Immediately upon expiration of the period of disqualification and upon reinstatement of the Applicant’s licence, the Applicant is suspended for a period of 9 (nine) months, with that period of suspension fully suspended. c) If the Applicant is charged with a prohibited substance-related offence (under AHRR, rule 188A, 189, 190, 190A, 190AA, 190B, 192, 193, 194, 194A, 196, 196A or 196B) (“new charge”) during the period of suspension, the suspension of the penalty will be immediately lifted, so that the licence suspension is reactivated and the 9 (nine) months period of suspension served in full. (Matters that are the subject of any new charge will be treated and dealt with as a separate proceeding.) d) During the period of disqualification, the Applicant will be permitted to remain living on his property, break in horses (for the purpose of harness racing) and undertake farrier work. Otherwise the restrictions under AHRR, rule 259 apply. 3. The Tribunal makes no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – where harness racing trainer failed to present horse for racing free of the permitted concentration of the prohibited substance cobalt – where parties agreed on proposed penalty – where Tribunal agreed to a period of disqualification and a fully suspended period of suspension – where trainer exempted from certain prohibitions applying to disqualification – where suspension of period of suspension subject to trainer not being charged with prohibited substance offences during the period of suspension Australian Harness Racing Rules, r 190, r 191, r 256(2)(b), r 256(5), r 259 Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 4 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 10(1)(j) Standard – Powers under the Rules of Racing (Qld) dated 1 July 2017, s 6.3 David Crawford v Stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria, Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board (13 July 2016) Hooper v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] 236 Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Darren Gordon Weeks
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT:	represented by Mr M O’Connor of O’Connor, Ruddy & Garrett
RESPONDENT:	represented by Mr A Forbes of Lander & Rogers

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Mr Weeks, is a harness racing trainer.
A Stewards…

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 Weeks 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: [2017] QCAT 345
Decision Date: 11 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Weeks v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission involved a harness racing trainer, Weeks, who failed to present a horse for racing free of the permitted concentration of the prohibited substance cobalt. The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission found Weeks in breach of the Australian Harness Racing Rules and imposed a penalty. Weeks sought review of the penalty imposed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the breach of the rule but varied the penalty, imposing a 6-month disqualification followed by a 9-month suspended suspension, contingent upon Weeks not being charged with a prohibited substance offence during the suspension period.

The central legal issue for the court was the appropriate penalty to impose on Weeks for his breach of the racing rules. Both parties agreed on the breach but disagreed on the severity and nature of the penalty. The court had to consider the principles of proportionality and deterrence in the context of racing integrity and public confidence in the sport. The court also needed to ensure that any penalty imposed would effectively deter future breaches while being fair to the individual trainer.

The court found that the Tribunal’s initial penalty was disproportionate given the agreed penalty and the fact that Weeks had not previously been charged with a prohibited substance offence. The court substituted the Tribunal’s decision with a modified penalty that was more aligned with the agreed terms. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of harness racing and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offence. The modified penalty still aimed to deter future breaches while providing Weeks with a reasonable opportunity to maintain his livelihood by engaging in certain activities during his disqualification period.

The court set aside the Tribunal’s decision on the penalty and substituted it with a 6-month disqualification followed by a 9-month suspended suspension, contingent upon Weeks not being charged with a prohibited substance offence during the suspension period. The court also allowed Weeks to remain on his property, break in horses, and undertake farrier work during the disqualification period, subject to certain restrictions. The Tribunal made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision that the Applicant breached rule 190(1) of the Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) is confirmed.

2. The decision to impose a penalty of disqualification for 15 months is set a side and substituted with a decision that:

a) The Applicant is disqualified for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of this order.

b) Immediately upon expiration of the period of disqualification and upon reinstatement of the Applicant’s licence, the Applicant is suspended for a period of 9 (nine) months, with that period of suspension fully suspended.

c) If the Applicant is charged with a prohibited substance-related offence (under AHRR, rule 188A, 189, 190, 190A, 190AA, 190B, 192, 193, 194, 194A, 196, 196A or 196B) (“new charge”) during the period of suspension, the suspension of the penalty will be immediately lifted, so that the licence suspension is reactivated and the 9 (nine) months period of suspension served in full. (Matters that are the subject of any new charge will be treated and dealt with as a separate proceeding.)

d) During the period of disqualification, the Applicant will be permitted to remain living on his property, break in horses (for the purpose of harness racing) and undertake farrier work. Otherwise the restrictions under AHRR, rule 259 apply.

3. The Tribunal makes no order as to costs.

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.