Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2025] QCAT 17

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2025] QCAT 17

PARTIES:

KYLE WILSON-TAYLOR

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR203-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 October 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Chapple

ORDERS:

1. The internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 27 July 2022 is set aside.

2. A decision is substituted that Mr Wilson-Taylor, riding CAPRI OF TUFFY in Race 6 at Doomben on 13 July 2022, is not guilty of the charge of improper riding pursuant to Rule 131(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – principles applied – fresh hearing on the merits – racing – where charge of improper riding – where the meaning of improper riding and competitive riding discussed – where standard of proof discussed – preferred evidence insufficient to prove charge

Australian Rules of Racing, r 129, r 131(a)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 28(4)

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 246

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

Schofield: Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board Victoria, 26 September 2014

Thomas v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] QCAT 106

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr N Taylor of Suthers Taylor

Respondent:

Mr W Kelly, General Counsel, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant (‘Mr Wilson-Taylor’) was found guilty of a charge of improper riding in a horse race held at Doomben on 13 July 2022, at a Stewards’ inquiry conducted that day, and a penalty of a four-week suspension was imposed.
Mr Wilson-Taylor sought an internal review of the Stewards’ decision by the respondent, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (‘the Commission’). The internal review decision dated 27 July 2022 confirmed the original decision.
Mr Wilson-Taylor filed in the Tribunal an application to review the internal review decision on 1 August 2022 (‘the review application’).
The internal review decision was stayed by an order of the Tribunal dated 3 August 2022 pending the determination of the review application or until further order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is given jurisdiction to externally review decisions of the Commission by section 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). By section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), the purpose of the 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, standing in the shoes of the Commission. It is not necessary to establish any error in either the process or reasoning of the Commission that led to the decision and there is no presumption that the reviewable decision was correct.[1]
[1]Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [8].
The role of the Commission is to use its best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to make its decision. This…

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 Wilson-Taylor 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: [2025] QCAT 17
Decision Date: 6 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, the applicant, Mr Wilson-Taylor, challenged a decision by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that suspended his racing licence for four weeks. The dispute arose from a charge of improper riding during a race at Doomben on 13 July 2022. Mr Wilson-Taylor argued that the evidence provided by the Stewards was insufficient to support the charge against him.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Stewards' decision to suspend Mr Wilson-Taylor's licence was supported by the evidence and whether the standard of proof required to establish improper riding had been met. The court also considered the admissibility of the Stewards' transcript and a bundle of seven stills derived from the video footage of the race, despite objections from Mr Wilson-Taylor's legal representative.

The court found that the Stewards' decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. It was noted that while Mr Wilson-Taylor may have been riding closer to the fence, there was no clear evidence that his actions constituted improper riding as defined by the Australian Rules of Racing. The court held that the Stewards' findings did not adequately address the specific requirements of Rule 131(a), which pertains to improper riding. Moreover, the court concluded that the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof to establish that Mr Wilson-Taylor's conduct was improper.

Consequently, the court set aside the internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and substituted a decision that Mr Wilson-Taylor was not guilty of the charge of improper riding. This ruling effectively overturned the suspension of his racing licence and restored his ability to participate in races without restriction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The internal review decision of the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission dated 27 July 2022 is set aside.

2. A decision is substituted that Mr Wilson-Taylor, riding CAPRI OF TUFFY in Race 6 at Doomben on 13 July 2022, is not guilty of the charge of improper riding pursuant to Rule 131(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Stewards suspended Mr Wilson-Taylor’s licence to ride in races for a period of 4 weeks to commence at midnight on 22 July 2022 up to and including 19 August 2022.Filed evidence and related materialApplicant Affidavit of Mr Wilson-Taylor sworn 10 February 2023. Affidavit of Mr Kelly Schweida sworn 10 February 2023.Respondent Stewards’ report dated 13 July 2022. Race video footage dated 13 July 2022. Bundle of seven stills derived from the video footage (filed 3 October 2024). Transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry dated 13 July 2022 (filed 3 October 2024). Application for internal review dated 15 July 2022. Disciplinary history – Mr Wilson-Taylor dated 18 July 2022. Internal review decision 0022-22 dated 27 July 2022.The hearing Mr Taylor (solicitor for Mr Wilson-Taylor) reiterated his objection made in an email dated 3 October 2024 to the filing of the transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry and the bundle of seven stills. He pointed to Direction 2 of the Tribunal’s Directions dated 23 May 2023, which provided that “No further material may be filed in the Proceeding without leave of the Tribunal”. Mr Taylor argued in particular that the stills take the charged conduct out of context. Mr Kelly (general counsel for the Commission) pointed to s 28(4) of the QCAT Act, which provides that the Tribunal may admit into evidence the contents of any document despite noncompliance with any time limit or other requirement. I granted leave to permit the filing of the transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry and the bundle of seven stills and admitted the same into evidence on the basis that the transcript and photographs are extracts of or derived from previously filed material. I consider that each of this evidence and the remaining documentary and oral evidence must be weighed and considered in the context of the totality of the evidence. The Commission called evidence from Mr Williamson and Mr Aurisch. Mr Wilson-Taylor gave evidence on his own behalf.Mr Williamson Mr Williamson, as a Racing Steward and member of the Stewards’ inquiry for the race, spoke to his observations of the race as it occurred from his standpoint in the tower at the 800 metres (alongside the person taking the video footage) and as captured in the video footage. Mr Williamson said the video footage captures his front-on view of the race from the start, lateral view from the left-hand side as the field comes past the 800 metres, back-on view as the field goes towards the 600 metres, and lateral view from the right-hand side as the field goes down the home straight. Mr Williamson made some general comments to inform his observations of the race, which I summarise as follows: (a)Once a rider establishes a racing line (that is, the position of the horse relative to the fence, for example, on the fence, one off the fence or two-wide, three-wide and so on), and wishes to remain in that line, the rider is permitted to remain so and should not be forced to move, change position or be interfered with by another rider.(b)A rider can establish any position they wish as long as they do not interfere with anyone else.(c)To save ground and get a direct line, it is better to be closer to the fence.(d)Further away from the fence, going around a corner, a rider has to cover more distance; hence, tactically, it is beneficial for a rider to keep an opponent wider if possible to allow options.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.