Hess v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
[2018] QCAT 16
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Hess v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2018] QCAT 16
- Add to List
Hess v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2018] QCAT 16
Hess v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2018] QCAT 16
CITATION: | Hess v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2018] QCAT 16 |
PARTIES: | Anthony Charles Hess (Applicant) v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR061-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | 11 January 2018 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 January 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – where greyhound trainer lived on property of warned off person – where parties agreed on proposed penalty – whether proposed penalty is suitable Greyhounds Australasian Rules, Rule 86 Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 3 Edmondson v Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board [2016] QCAT 70 Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy [2016] QCATA 146 |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]Mr Hess was a licensed greyhound trainer.
- [2]During a stewards’ inquiry conducted on 9 November 2016 and 19 December 2016, Mr Hess made admissions that he did, on 21 May 2015, live at the property of Mr Tom Noble at Wotan Road, Churchable.
- [3]Mr Noble was warned off on 4 March 2015 for his involvement in, and knowledge of, live baiting which took place at his property.
- [4]Mr Hess admitted he knew that Mr Noble was a warned off person, and that he was in regular contact with Mr Noble throughout this period of time.
- [5]The stewards found that Mr Hess was guilty of an offence under Rule 86 of the Greyhounds Australasian Rules (the Rules) for associating with a disqualified person for the purposes of greyhound racing. The stewards imposed a two-year disqualification on Mr Hess, effective from 19 December 2016.
- [6]Mr Hess sought an internal review of the stewards’ decision. The internal reviewer reduced the penalty from a two-year disqualification to a one-year disqualification.
Proposed orders
- [7]The parties have come to an agreement for the finalisation of the review and ask the Tribunal to make orders in accordance with their agreement. Those orders are that:
- 1.The Applicant’s Application for Review filed 22 March 2017 is dismissed.
- 2.Internal Review Decision 008-17 dated 23 February 2017 is confirmed.
- 3.The Applicant’s period of disqualification expired on 1 August 2017.
- 4.There be no order as to costs.
- [8]I note that the internal review decision imposed a one-year disqualification from 19 December 2016, and that Mr Hess’ period of disqualification therefore ended on 18 December 2017. The reference to the period of disqualification expiring on 1 August 2017 is unexplained and appears to be in error.
Consideration of penalty
- [9]It has been held that the Tribunal ought not depart from a proposed sanction agreed between parties, unless it falls outside the permissible range of possible sanctions for the conduct.[1]
- [10]Guidance on setting penalties in a racing industry context was provided by the reasoning of Thomas J in Queensland Racing Integrity Commission v Gilroy[2] (‘Gilroy’). His Honour noted that “[a] key consideration is to maintain the integrity of the industry as a whole and to demonstrate to participants in the industry and the public, that behaviour which breaches the rules will not be tolerated.”[3]
- [11]The Tribunal has previously expressed the view that “the purpose of a penalty is to ensure that the standards of the racing industry are upheld: this necessarily involves a penalty that has a deterrent effect and demonstrates to the public that this behaviour will not be tolerated”.[4] However, the exercise of “imposing a penalty involves a balance between the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence and any mitigating factors”.[5]
- [12]These statements are consistent with the main objects of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) set out in s 3(1):
The main purposes of this Act are—
- (a)to maintain public confidence in the racing of animals in Queensland for which betting is lawful; and
- (b)to ensure the integrity of all persons involved with racing or betting under this Act or the Racing Act; and
- (c)to safeguard the welfare of all animals involved in racing under this Act or the Racing Act.
- [13]Thomas J also noted in Gilroy that it is appropriate to take into account sanctions that have been imposed in respect of similar offences.[6] The parties jointly submit that the appropriate range for an offence such as that in the present case is a period of disqualification of one to two years.
- [14]I accept that it would have been difficult for Mr Hess to avoid contact with Mr Noble, living as he did at a property owned by Mr Noble. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed penalty is within the range of permissible sanctions for Mr Hess’ conduct, and achieves a balance between the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the mitigating factors relating to Mr Hess’ residence at the property.
- [15]I will make orders confirming the internal review decision and that there be no order as to costs.