Wehlow v Queensland Racing Integrity Unit - [2021] QCAT 86

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wehlow v Queensland Racing Integrity Unit [2021] QCAT 86

PARTIES:

JARED WEHLOW

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR015-20

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2021

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gardiner

ORDERS:

1. The decision of Mr Kane Ashby of 6 January 2020 to confirm on internal review the original
Stewards’ decision of 27 November 2019 is set aside.

In substitution:

2. Jared Wehlow is found not guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – Thoroughbred trainer – presentation of a horse to race when a urine sample found a prohibited substance – plea of not guilty to charge of breach of Australian Rule of Racing 178 – question of appropriate chain of custody

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 Qld s 20

Racing Integrity Act 2016 Qld, s 246

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Re Day [2017] HCA 2; (2017) 91 ALJR 262

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

P Boyce, Solicitor, Butler McDermott Lawyers

Respondent:

S. McLeod Q.C. instructed by the Queensland Racing Integrity Unit

REASONS FOR DECISION

Jared Wehlow is the trainer of the thoroughbred Mishnah. Mr Wehlow presented Mishnah to race at Rockhampton on 31 January 2019 and again on 14 February 2019. Post-race urine samples were taken from the horse which were allegedly found on later analysis to contain a prohibitive substance, dexamethasone.
Mr Wehlow was charged with two breaches pursuant to rule 178 of the Australian Rules of Racing, namely, Mishnah’s urine samples were found to contain a prohibited substance.
An inquiry was conducted before QRIC Stewards on 27 November 2019. Mr Wehlow pleaded not guilty to each charge concerning the prohibited substance. At the first instance, the Stewards found Mr Wehlow guilty on each charge and imposed a fine on each charge of $3,000.00, a total of $6,000.00.
An internal review of that decision was sought by Mr Wehlow and on 6 January 2020 this review decision confirmed the original decision. The finding of guilt and the penalties remained the same.
This is an external review under s 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). By s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), the purpose of this review is to produce the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. [1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20.
Section 24 of the QCAT Act sets out the functions of this Tribunal on review. The Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own, or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision maker with directions if appropriate.
Mr Wehlow does not challenge the finding of dexamethasone in the urine sample. The issue he brings to the Tribunal…

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 Wehlow v Queensland Racing Integrity Unit

Details

AGLC: Wehlow v Queensland Racing Integrity Unit [2021] QCAT 86
Case: [2021] QCAT 86
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jared Wehlow, a thoroughbred horse trainer, sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Unit (QRIU) to find him guilty of breaching Australian Rule of Racing 178. The charges related to urine samples from his horse, Mishnah, that contained the prohibited substance dexamethasone. The Tribunal found that while the presence of dexamethasone in the samples was undisputed, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the samples in question were indeed those taken from Mishnah. The central issue was whether the chain of custody of the samples was adequately maintained to ensure that the samples tested were the same as those collected from Mishnah.

The Tribunal examined the process from the collection of the samples to their analysis. The collection process involved a form that was signed by the sample taker and the horse's handler, but this form was not provided to the horse's trainer or strapper. The Tribunal noted that this was a critical step in the chain of custody, which was not adequately addressed. Furthermore, the Stewards' records did not specifically link the samples to Mishnah, raising concerns about the identification of the samples. Despite the proper splitting and renumbering of the samples at the Racing Science Centre, the Tribunal could not definitively link the samples to Mishnah due to the lack of clear identification in the chain of custody.

Applying the Briginshaw principle, the Tribunal found that the seriousness of the charges and the potential impact on Wehlow's career warranted a high standard of proof. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to establish the chain of custody to the required standard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the QRIU and found Wehlow not guilty. This decision was based on the Tribunal's inability to be reasonably satisfied that the samples tested were indeed those taken from Mishnah, due to the deficiencies in the chain of custody.

Orders