William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2022] QCAT 130

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

PARTIES:

WILLIAM PETER HULBERT

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR170-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lee

ORDERS:

The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission of 31 May 2021 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – licensed trainer in thoroughbred racing industry – offensive language used about a jockey in an audio recording which became public – found guilty of misconduct, improper conduct or unseemly behaviour – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction when charge different on review – whether charge substantiated on review – whether penalty proportionate and appropriate.

Australian Rules of Racing, rule 228

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 13(1), s 21, s 58
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(c), s 20(1)(2), s 24(1)
Racing Act 2002 (Qld), s 4(1), s 100(2)(a)(b), s 101

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 3(b), s 24, s 63(a)(b), s 240(1), s 243(1), s 245, s 246

DA v Deputy Commissioner Martin [2018] QCAT 10

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1
Couchy v Birchley [2005] QDC 334
Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 480
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Jones v Acting Assistant Commissioner Horton [2021] QCAT 209

Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Tim Ryan, instructed by Howden Saggers Lawyers

Respondent:

Matt Black, instructed by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

Mr William Peter Hulbert (Mr Hulbert) has applied to the Tribunal[1] for a review of the Internal Review Decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) which upheld the finding that Mr Hulbert engaged in misconduct[2] together with the issuance of a penalty by way of a fine in the sum of $1,000 (the decision).
[1]Application to review a decision filed 14 June 2021.
[2]In accordance with the Australian Rules of Racing 228 (b) which provides that a person must not engage in misconduct, improper conduct or unseemly behaviour.
The decision was made on 31 May 2021[3] after Mr Hulbert sought a review of the earlier decision of the QRIC Stewards Panel of 28 April 2021[4] which found him guilty of a charge of misconduct and the issuing of a penalty by way of a fine in the sum of $1,000 (the original decision).
[3]Exhibit 1.7.
[4]Exhibit 1.2.
The issues to be determined in these proceedings is whether a ground for disciplinary action is established and if so, the appropriate sanction to be taken.

Background

On 30 January 2021 Mr Hulbert, a licenced trainer within the thoroughbred racing industry in Queensland of some years, made an audio recording about the performance of a jockey he engaged (Mr Andrew Mallyon) on the riding of…

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 William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commissi... 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: [2022] QCAT 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Peter Hulbert, a licensed trainer in the thoroughbred racing industry in Queensland, has applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for a review of a decision made by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC) which found him guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty by way of a fine in the sum of $1,000. The Tribunal is required to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a correct and preferable decision, whether the charge is substantiated on review, and if so, whether the penalty is proportionate and appropriate. The legal framework under which this proceeding operates is the Racing Act 2002 (Qld) and the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). Relevant to these proceedings is Rule 228 of the Australian Rules of Racing which provides that a person must not engage in misconduct, improper conduct or unseemly behaviour. The Tribunal finds that the charge before the Tribunal is the same charge as previously, such that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision. Having carefully reviewed all the evidence, including an audio recording of the oral evidence given at the Stewards Inquiry, the Tribunal is not persuaded by Mr Hulbert’s contention and submission that he is not guilty of the charge. The Tribunal is satisfied that the charge as particularised has been established on the evidence and finds accordingly. The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of QRIC and finds that a fine of $1,000.00 is proportionate and appropriate and in particular, that it serves as a deterrent to other like behaviour occurring again in these settings. The Tribunal finds that the limitations on Mr Hulbert’s human rights in this respect is lawful, proportionate to the circumstances and compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). In making the above findings and decision, the Tribunal is satisfied it has made the correct and preferable decision.

Final orders: The decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission of 31 May 2021 is confirmed.

Orders