Tarrant v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
[2021] QCAT 272
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
- Tarrant v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2021] QCAT 272
- Add to List
Tarrant v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2021] QCAT 272
Tarrant v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2021] QCAT 272
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Tarrant v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 272 |
PARTIES: | LUKE RONALD TARRANT (applicant) v QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR139-20 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 August 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | 26 July 2021 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND CALLINGS – thoroughbred racing – where charge of misconduct – where jockey headbutted another jockey – where assailant wore helmet and breached COVID restrictions – where lengthy disciplinary history including previous physical altercation – where guilty plea curtailed by limited insight – where unique mitigating factor – where attack followed verbal altercation extending to sensitive personal matters – where assailant’s mother recently deceased – where need for deterrence Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24 Harley v Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | W Kelly, Principal Legal Officer |
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this application about?
- [1]The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission disqualified jockey Luke Ronald Tarrant for six months for head-butting another jockey.[1]
- [2]Mr Tarrant has applied to the Tribunal to review the sanction. In a review application, the Tribunal’s purpose is to produce the ‘correct and preferable’ decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[2] This means that Mr Tarrant need not prove any error by the Commission in its original decision – the original decision is not presumed correct.[3]
- [3]I may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute my own decision or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration with appropriate directions.[4]
What does Mr Tarrant say are relevant factors?
- [4]Mr Tarrant submitted these factors as relevant:
- (a)The detriment to his income and mental health;
- (b)His previous breach was an act of self-defence and should not be considered; and
- (c)His guilty plea.
- (a)
- [5]However, no expert evidence was adduced of any impact on Mr Tarrant’s health. It cannot be a mitigating factor without evidence. Any impact on Mr Tarrant’s income from riding is a necessary consequence of the sanction. The extent to which his early guilty plea mitigates penalty is curtailed by his limited insight into the nature and seriousness of his behaviour.
What does the Commission say are relevant factors?
- [6]The Commission submitted these factors as relevant:
- (a)The attack was not provoked;
- (b)Using a helmet for the head-butt;
- (c)Mr Tarrant’s contrition was limited, saying “I don’t want to say it was unnecessary”;
- (d)Compromising health and safety of jockeys at work;
- (e)Compromising the entire industry by breaching COVID distancing;
- (f)Tarnishing the reputation of the industry; and
- (g)Mr Tarrant’s 2019 conviction and fine for another physical altercation.
- (a)
- [7]Mr Tarrant gave evidence that the attack was provoked, following a verbal altercation between him and the other jockey. Mr Tarrant said the other jockey made a derisive reference to his late mother. The other jockey also gave evidence of a verbal altercation, but said he could not recall making any comments about Mr Tarrant’s mother.
- [8]Without evidence directly refuting Mr Tarrant, I accept his sworn evidence that the attack immediately followed a verbal altercation extending to sensitive personal matters. This is consistent with the character reference from his agent,[5] who described Mr Tarrant as not having an aggressive character and the incident as “heat of the moment”. The incident was not without context.
- [9]I accept the other factors are relevant.
How do these circumstances compare with previous decisions?
- [10]No previous Tribunal decisions were cited. The Commission’s Table of Precedents lacked sufficient information to provide any useful comparison. However, I have considered the more detailed precedents in the internal review decision. These show a range of a $1,000.00 fine to six months’ disqualification.
- [11]The lower penalties in El-Issa, Spinks, King, Abraham, Maund and McLean are all distinguishable because Mr Tarrant’s assault was more serious, and he already has a lengthy disciplinary history including a recent physical altercation.
- [12]In El-Issa and Spinks, the Commission imposed fines of $1,000.00. These arose from the same incident, where Mr El-Issa head-butted Mr Spinks in response to being pushed. Mr Tarrant’s attack was more serious than those cases. He was the aggressor. Unlike El-Issa and Spinks, Mr Tarrant has a prior conviction for a physical altercation.
- [13]In King, the Commission imposed a fine of $2,000.00. Unlike King, Mr Tarrant’s behaviour was disproportionate to the perceived transgression and he has a prior conviction for a physical altercation.
- [14]In Abraham, the Commission imposed a disqualification period of two months. Unlike Abraham, Mr Tarrant risked greater injury to his victim by using his helmet and to all the industry by breaching COVID restrictions.
- [15]In Maund, the Commission also imposed a disqualification period of two months. Unlike Maund, Mr Tarrant was not struck by his victim.
- [16]In McLean, the Commission imposed a suspension period of five months. Unlike McLean, Mr Tarrant risked greater injury to his victim by using his helmet and to all the industry by breaching COVID restrictions.
- [17]The circumstances of Mr Tarrant’s offence are most similar to Lock, which resulted in six months’ disqualification. Like Lock, Mr Tarrant struck the head of another person. Mr Tarrant also risked greater injury to his victim by using his helmet and to all the industry by breaching COVID restrictions.
- [18]However, the unique mitigating factor here is the attack occurred within the context of sensitive personal comments following the recent passing of Mr Tarrant’s mother. The Commission noted Mr Tarrant could apply for dispensation of the disqualification.
- [19]The purpose of imposing a penalty is to act as a deterrent and protect the integrity of the racing industry. Violence is abhorrent and unacceptable. Mr Tarrant’s attack caused the other jockey to suffer significant nose-bleeding, swelling and bruising around his face and eyes and severe nerve pain in his teeth.[6] Workplace health and safety and public confidence that the industry is COVID-safe are paramount.
- [20]The length of the penalty is confirmed. A period of six months’ is appropriate to deter both Mr Tarrant and others and maintain consistency with other decisions. However, the penalty is mitigated from disqualification to suspension to reflect the ‘heat of the moment’ context.
- [21]The correct and preferable decision is to amend the Commission’s decision to disqualify Mr Tarrant for a period of six months, to suspend Mr Tarrant for a period of six months. The actual time to serve is reduced by any time already served. The stay is lifted.[7]
Footnotes
[1]Internal Review Decision dated 5 May 2020, Australian Rule of Racing 115(1)(a).
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20.
[3]Harley v Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620, [8] citing with approval Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58, [9].
[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24.
[5]Reference of Melanie Adams-Smith dated 11 July 2021.
[6]Statement of L V Cassidy dated 21 July 2021.
[7]Decision dated 15 June 2020.