Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2017
  4. Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission - [2017] QCAT 447

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2017] QCAT 447

Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2017] QCAT 447

CITATION:

Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 447

PARTIES:

Alec James Stevens

(Applicant)

v

Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR091-17

MATTER TYPE:

General Review 

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GAMING AND LIQUOR – ADMINISTRATION – RACING – RACING COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS – GREYHOUND RACING – decision made by Queensland Racing Integrity Commission to suspend an animal from racing under rule 69A of the Greyhounds Australasia Rules – whether decision is reviewable under s 240(2)(b) of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether QCAT has jurisdiction

Greyhound Australasia Rules, rule 69A, rule 69B

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 33

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 240 s 242, s 243, s 245, s 246

APPEARANCES:

 

APPLICANT:

Alec James Stevens 

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Racing Intergrity Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    On 9 August 2016 two Queensland Racing Integrity stewards at an Ipswich greyhound meeting made a decision to suspend Mr Alec Stevens’ greyhound, Magic Pass, from racing for 3 months. On 17 August 2016 Mr Stevens applied for internal review of that decision but the Racing Integrity Commission refused to conduct the internal review on the basis it was not a decision subject to its internal review processes.
  2. [2]
    Mr Stevens then applied to this Tribunal on 31 May 2017 for review of the stewards’ suspension decision.
  3. [3]
    The Commission maintains that a decision to suspend an animal is not subject to internal review and is not a reviewable decision pursuant to s 240(2)(b) of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) (RIA). Accordingly, the Commission maintains that Mr Steven’s application should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  4. [4]
    By Directions dated 19 June 2017, the issue as to whether the Tribunal should dismiss the review application for lack of jurisdiction was to be determined on the papers following receipt of written submissions by the parties.[1]

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review a decision to suspend an animal?

  1. [5]
    The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is that conferred on it by an enabling Act.[2]
  2. [6]
    The Tribunal can only exercise its review jurisdiction if a person has applied to the Tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision.[3]
  3. [7]
    “Reviewable decision” is defined by reference to s 17(2) of the QCAT Act. Section 17(2) provides that a decision mentioned in s 17(1) is a reviewable decision. Section 17(1) provides:

The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.

  1. [8]
    Under s 33(3) of the QCAT Act, an application for review of a reviewable decision must be made within 28 days after the relevant day, which is the day the person was notified of the reviewable decision.
  2. [9]
    The issue is whether the decision to suspend Magic Pass is a “reviewable decision”.

The original decision

  1. [10]
    On 9 August 2016 Magic Pass raced in Race 9 at the Ipswich Greyhound Racing Club. After that race a decision was made by two Racing Integrity Commission stewards to impose a suspension in respect of Magic Pass pursuant to rule 69A of the Greyhound Australasia Rules for “failing to pursue”. As this was the second occasion in which the greyhound had been involved in an offence, a 3-month suspension was subsequently imposed.
  2. [11]
    Rule 69A of the Greyhound Australasia Rules provides:
  1. (1)
    Unless Rule 69B otherwise applies, where, in the opinion of the Stewards, a greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment during an Event, the Stewards shall impose a period of suspension in respect of the greyhound pursuant to sub-rule (2), and the specifics shall be recorded in the relevant Controlling Body Register, or where applicable, the Certificate of Registration or Weight Card of the greyhound.
  1. (2)
    The period of suspension imposed pursuant to sub-rule (1) shall be- (a) in the case of a first offence, at the track where the offence occurred, 28 days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial; or (b) subject to Rule 70, in the case of a second offence, at all tracks, 3 months, and until the completion of a satisfactory trial; or (c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, at all tracks, 12 months and until the completion of a satisfactory trial. (added – 01.01.14)
  1. [12]
    Rule 69B provides:
  1. (1)
    Where, in the opinion of the Stewards, a greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment for the first time only then it shall be examined by the officiating veterinary surgeon or authorised person at the meeting and (a) if found to be injured, it shall be suspended until the completion of a satisfactory trial, and the specifics shall be recorded in the relevant Controlling Body Register, or where applicable, the Certificate of Registration or Weight Card of the greyhound. (b) if found not to be injured, then the provisions of Rule 69A shall apply. (2) Where a greyhound is found to be suffering from an injury pursuant to this rule, a certificate shall be produced to the Stewards by the veterinary surgeon or authorised person detailing the injury. (added – 01.01.14)
  1. [13]
    The Rules are subject to the Act or Regulations.[4] “Act” is defined in the Rules to mean the relevant legislation pertaining to a jurisdiction relating to greyhound racing. The relevant legislation is the RIA.
  2. [14]
    Under the Rules, a person who does not abide by any decision of the Controlling Body or the stewards made at any inquiry is guilty of an offence, unless that person has exercised a “right of appeal” as provided for by the Act or the Rules.
  3. [15]
    There is no appeal process in the Rules for a decision made under rule 69A.
  4. [16]
    I turn then to consider whether there is a right of appeal for a decision made under rule 69A provided for by the RIA.
  5. [17]
    The process of review (both internal and external) is dealt with in Chapter 6, Division 4 of the RIA.
  6. [18]
    Under Chapter 6, the following pre-conditions must exist before a person can apply to the Tribunal for review:
    1. there must be an “original decision” within the meaning of s 240;
    2. there must have been an internal review of that decision (s 242); and
    3. an application for review of the internal review decision has been made to the Tribunal (s 246(2)).
  7. [19]
    Under s 240 an original decision is defined as follows:

240 What is an original decision 

  1. (1)
    An original decision is a decision to do any of the following—
  1. (a)
    refuse to grant or renew a licence;
  1. (b)
    take disciplinary action relating to a licence;
  1. (c)
    censure the holder of a licence;
  1. (d)
    take an exclusion action against a person;
  1. (e)
    impose a monetary penalty on a person;
  1. (f)
    impose any other non-monetary penalty on a person;
  1. (g)
    seize, under this Act or a warrant, an animal or other thing, unless the seizure was in a circumstance mentioned in section 184(1)(a) or (b);
  1. (h)
    forfeit, under section 187(1), an animal or other thing;
  1. (i)
    give an animal welfare direction;
  1. (j)
    another decision prescribed by regulation.
  1. (2)
    However, the following decisions are not original decisions—
  1. (a)
    a decision relating to the eligibility of an animal to race or the conditions under which an animal can race;

* Example—

* the commission's decision requiring an animal to pass a stated examination or test before being allowed to race

  1. (b)
    a decision cancelling or suspending a licence for an animal, unless the cancellation or suspension relates to—
  1. (i)
    a decision to take disciplinary action relating to the licence of a licence holder; or
  1. (ii)
    a decision to take an exclusion action, under the control body's rules of racing, against a person;
  1. (c)
    a decision about a protest or objection against placed animals relating to an incident that happened during a race or trial;
  1. (d)
    a decision relating to a dispute between a racing bookmaker and a person who placed a bet with the bookmaker for a race;
  1. (e)
    a decision to stop, restart, rerun, postpone or abandon a race.
  1. [20]
    In this case the relevant decision was a decision by the stewards to suspend a licence for an animal, namely Magic Pass, and that was expressly excluded from being an original decision by s 240(2)(b). It is noted that neither of the qualifications in s 240(2)(b)(i) or (ii) apply.
  2. [21]
    As no original decision had been made, there was no scope to apply to the Commission for an internal review of that decision.[5] Similarly, as there was no internal review decision, there was no scope to apply for external review by QCAT of the original decision or for an appeal to the District Court.[6] Accordingly, as there is no scope for external review under the Rules for a decision made pursuant to rule 69A and as this is not an original decision within the meaning of the RIA, there is no reviewable decision in respect of which an application for review to the Tribunal could be made.
  3. [22]
    It follows that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of this matter and the application must be dismissed.

Footnotes

[1] Submissions of the applicant dated 17 July 2017, Submissions of the respondent dated 19 September 2017.

[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 17(1).

[3] QCAT Act, s 18(1).

[4] Greyhound Australasia Rules, Rule 10.

[5] RIA, s 243(1).

[6] RIA, s 242.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Alex James Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Stevens v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCAT 447

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Traves

  • Date:

    07 Dec 2017

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
The Health Ombudsman v NLM [2018] QCAT 1641 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.