Williams v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2024] QCAT 22

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Williams v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2024] QCAT 22

PARTIES:

TRENT JAMES WILLIAMS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR115-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

9 August 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Holzberger

ORDERS:

1. The application to stay a decision filed on 27 May 2022 is dismissed.

2. The application to review a decision filed on 27 May 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – RACING MATTERS – whether licence required to start races – whether tribunal has jurisdiction.

Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 241, s 242, s 243

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Murdoch QC instructed by WH Tutt

Respondent:

S McCleod QC

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The applicant Trent Williams is employed as racecourse manager by Rockhampton Jockey Club Incorporated. His responsibilities include “Starting of races, barrier trials and jump outs.”[1]
[1]Annexure A to application to stay a decision filed 27 May 2022.
On 21 March 2022 Mr. Williams entered a plea of guilty to a charge under Rule 228(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing which provides that a person must not engage in conduct prejudicial to the image, interests, integrity or welfare of racing.
The conduct which gave rise to the charge was Mr. Williams receiving the sum of $50 from a jockey, Nathan Day, in the weighing room at the Rockhampton Jockey Club on 12 March 2022. That incident came to the notice of the stewards on a review of CCTV footage.
At the conclusion of the stewards’ inquiry the stewards determined that the appropriate penalty was
…a suspension of your right to engage in any race day official duties, as well as your right to start any official trials or jump outs for a period of 18 months, six months of which is to be wholly suspended for a further period of 12 months, on condition that you do not breach any conduct related rules within that period.[2]
[2]Transcript 21 March 2022 P-7 lines 12-17.
This was later clarified by the following:
…so you will not be able to start or undertake any race day official duties or start any official trial or jump outs for the period of 12 months.[3]
[3]Ibid, lines 41-42.
The stewards also advised Mr. Williams that he had a right to an internal review of their decision.
Mr. Williams applied for an internal review but was advised by email on 5 April 2022 that the internal review application was not accepted.
Mr. Williams filed an application for review of the internal review decision, if indeed that refusal to accept it could be categorised as a decision, and an application to stay the decision pending determination of the review application.
It is submitted by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that Mr. Williams does not have standing to seek an internal review and as a consequence, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an external review.
Section 243(1) of the Racing Integrity Act2016 (Qld) (‘Racing Integrity Act’) relevantly provides that:
an interested person for an original decision may apply to the commission for an internal review of the decision.
The term interested person is relevantly defined in section 241(b)(iv) as “the licence holder adversely affected by the original decision.”
The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission says that Mr. Williams has not been licenced by it in any capacity and therefore is not an interested person.
It is continued on behalf of Mr. Williams that he has been licenced by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission as a race starter, evidenced by a document titled “record of assessment” dated 8 July 2020 attached to his review application and marked “annexure A (record of assessment).”
The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is established pursuant to section 7 of the Racing Integrity Act. Its functions include:
…to licence animals and participants that are suitable to be licenced for a code of racing.[4]
[4]Racing Integrity Act, s 10(1)(a).
It is uncontroversial that Mr. Williams is a participant in the industry and as such is bound by the provisions of the Australian Rules of Racing.
The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission relies on the evidence of its chief stipendiary steward thoroughbreds, Peter Chadwick, contained in his affidavit filed on 17 June 2022.
It is Mr Chadwick's evidence in respect of the record of assessment:
(a)it is not a form required to be completed for any Queensland Racing Integrity Commission purposes (paragraph 10);
(b)some race clubs forward copies of the form to the stewards in which event it is electronically stored but otherwise “no action or consideration is taken by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission in respect of them” (paragraph 11); and
(c)the assessment was carried out by Peter Cousins, an employee of the Brisbane Race Club, who was not performing any role on behalf of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (paragraph 9).
Mr Chadwick says that he “was not required to and did not provide an approval for Mr. Williams to act as a starter” (paragraph 12).
Mr. Williams has filed in the Tribunal two affidavits in support of his application, the first on 8 June 2022 and the second on 26 July 2022.
Mr. Williams says:
…only a person who has the necessary qualifications and is licenced by the respondent is eligible to act as a starter of races, trials and jump outs.[5]
[5]Affidavit of Trent Williams 8 June 2022, paragraph 9.
He does not say why that is the case. He does not point to any provision of the Racing Integrity Act, the Australian Rules of Racing or any policy statement or other document or any information given to him which supports that contention.
Apart for the production of the record of assessment he does not give any evidence of the approval process. Specifically, he does not point to any conduct on the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission's part which could lead him to conclude that he needed a licence to act as starter, or that the assessment was a precondition of it.
He does not say who required him to undertake and arranged for the assessment.
He relies instead on the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission holding a copy of it in their records. The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission does not contest that.
To an extent, however, the stewards’ inquiry, and more specifically the penalty notice that was subsequently sent to him, support his perception that he was a licence holder.
In the penalty details section of the penalty notice he is twice referred to as “a licensee with the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission.” In the pre-printed section of the form and at the penalty details inserted in the form, the penalty is:
…suspended for a period of eighteen (18) months, six (6) of which to be wholly suspended for a period of twelve (12) months commencing from the 22^nd of March 2022 to the 22^nd of March 2023.
This suggests that the stewards conducting the inquiry were of the view that Mr. Williams was licenced, and to that extent were at odds with Mr Chadwick.
The transcript of the inquiry does not support this, but it did not become available until filed in the Tribunal on 15 July 2022. It seems that the error is in the completion of the penalty notice rather than in the decision itself.
The record of assessment itself is a document with Queensland Racing Integrity Commission headers and footers. The first page assesses the starter’s compliance with six categories by selecting yes or no options. The balance of the document gives further breakdowns of each of the six categories into more specific areas where competence is assessed by the same method.
The document contains no explanatory notes or text to give it context. Mr Peter Cousins is identified as the assessor and both he and Mr. Williams have signed the document.
The only factors which Mr. Williams has identified that support to some degree the contention that this constitutes or evidence as a licence that the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission:
(a)at least tolerates the use of its header and footer; and
(b)received a copy of it and maintain a copy of it in their electronic records.
It is not asserted that there has been any correspondence exchanged or conversations held relating to either the undertaking of the assessment or the issue or otherwise of a licence following its completion.
Chapter 3, Division 2 of the Racing Integrity Act relates to standards for licencing schemes for each code of racing. The standard identifies the activities for which a licence is required. It is not asserted that starters are required to hold the licence other than by Mr. Williams unsupported evidence.
While it is not necessary for me to make any finding in that regard, I accept that the licencing process can lack formality in this case, and there is no evidence of any application being made by Mr. Williams or on his behalf, or any acknowledgment of any application being received or dealt with by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission.
In those circumstances I find that Mr. Williams is not a licensee under the Racing Integrity Act and that as such is not an “interested person” who has standing to seek an internal review of the steward's decision.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters it is empowered to deal with under the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) or the enabling act, in this case, the Racing Integrity Act. Section 242 of the Racing Integrity Act provides that a person may not apply for a review of or appeal an original decision, in this case the stewards’ decision, unless there has been an internal review of the decision.
It is not the case here that by failing to deliver Mr. Williams a review notice within 20 business days the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission is taken to have confirmed the original decision. Rather, the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission has refused to accept the internal review application and has not undertaken a review of the decision.
It follows then, that if Mr. Williams does not have standing to apply for an internal review, as I have found, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to conduct an external review is not enlivened. Both the stay and review applications must be dismissed.