Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission
[2025] QCAT 17
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
- Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2025] QCAT 17
- Add to List
Wilson-Taylor v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission[2025] QCAT 17
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: |
|
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
- [1]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.
- [2]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.
- [3]Mr Wilson-Taylor filed in the Tribunal an application to review the internal review decision on 1 August 2022 (‘the review application’).
- [4]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.
- [5]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]
- [6]The role of the Commission is to use its best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to make its decision. This includes providing the Tribunal with a statement of reasons for the decision and a copy of any document or thing relevant to the decision.[2]
- [7]The matter was heard by me on 10 October 2024, and I reserved my decision. These are my reasons.
The charge
- [8]Mr Wilson-Taylor was the rider of a horse named CAPRI OF TUFFY in Race 6 at Doomben on 13 July 2022.
- [9]Mr Noel Callow was the rider of another horse in the race, named GET THE IDEA.
- [10]Also referred to in these reasons are other horses in the race, named DARING BELLE and ACROBATIC.
- [11]After the race concluded, Mr Wilson-Taylor attended a Stewards’ inquiry where he was found guilty of a charge of improper riding pursuant to Rule 131(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing, which provides as follows:
A rider must not, in the opinion of the stewards, engage in careless, reckless, improper, incompetent or foul riding.
- [12]
GET THE IDEA raced in restricted room and was buffeted when racing in a one wide position to the inside of CAPRI OF TUFFY for some distance between the 900m and 600m. K Wilson-Taylor, rider of CAPRI OF TUFFY, was found guilty of a charge of improper riding under AR131(a) in that initially near the 900m and again approaching the 800m he directed his mount in and made heavy contact with GET THE IDEA which became unbalanced before again between the 800m and 700m he directed his mount in with his right elbow raised when attempting to move GET THE IDEA towards the rail. This action resulted in both GET THE IDEA and CAPRI OF TUFFY to become buffeted and unbalanced.
- [13]Chairman of Stewards for the race, Mr Daniel Aurisch, sitting with Racing Stewards, Messrs J Williamson and G Goold, in the Stewards’ inquiry, articulated the charge during the inquiry as follows:
Race 6…The class five handicap over 1350 metres. You did ride in an improper manner approaching the 900. You shifted in and made heavy contact, directed your mount inwards. You made heavy contact with Mr Callow’s mount, Get The Idea. You run successful in shifting him to the fence. Near the 800, you attempted to direct your mount inward again and make a bigger contact with Get The Idea. From the 800, you continue to direct your mount inwards to a point leaving the 700 where your right elbow is cocked towards the horse of Mr Callow, Get The Idea, applying pressure to his mount and he’s awkwardly placed.
If you were successful in your pressure inwards, he would have been at the heels of Wendy Peel and could have been a dangerous position you put [unclear] together with.[4]
…
We’re – so, it’s not foul riding, we’re charging him with improper riding.[5]
…
[In response to a query about whether Mr Wilson-Taylor’s cocked elbow is part of the charge, Mr Aurisch states:]
No…We’re simply saying he’s got the elbow cocked towards the…[6]
- [14]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 material
Applicant
- [15]Affidavit of Mr Wilson-Taylor sworn 10 February 2023.
- [16]Affidavit of Mr Kelly Schweida sworn 10 February 2023.
Respondent
- [17]Stewards’ report dated 13 July 2022.
- [18]Race video footage dated 13 July 2022.
- [19]Bundle of seven stills derived from the video footage (filed 3 October 2024).
- [20]Transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry dated 13 July 2022 (filed 3 October 2024).
- [21]Application for internal review dated 15 July 2022.
- [22]Disciplinary history – Mr Wilson-Taylor dated 18 July 2022.
- [23]Internal review decision 0022-22 dated 27 July 2022.
The hearing
- [24]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.
- [25]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.
- [26]The Commission called evidence from Mr Williamson and Mr Aurisch.
- [27]Mr Wilson-Taylor gave evidence on his own behalf.
Mr Williamson
- [28]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.
- [29]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.
- [30]Mr Williamson made some general comments to inform his observations of the race, which I summarise as follows:
- 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.
- A rider can establish any position they wish as long as they do not interfere with anyone else.
- To save ground and get a direct line, it is better to be closer to the fence.
- 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.
- [31]I summarise Mr Williamson’s observations of the race (as he referenced the video footage played at hearing) as follows:
- Mr Callow established his two-wide position from the 1200 metres.
- Approaching the 900 metres, DARING BELLE is on the fence, Mr Callow is two-wide, and Mr Wilson-Taylor is three-wide. Room opens up behind DARING BELLE on the fence. It appears Mr Wilson-Taylor moves closer to the fence having the view that there was room for Mr Callow to move onto the fence between DARING BELLE and the rider wearing red and white silks further back.
- At the 900 metres, Mr Wilson-Taylor directs his mount in, makes shoulder-to-shoulder contact with Mr Callow’s mount and attempts to move Mr Callow to the fence. If Mr Callow had been inclined to move to the fence, he would have allowed that to happen, and it would not have been dangerous to do that. Instead, putting pressure on his left-hand rein, Mr Callow turns his mount’s head out towards Mr Wilson-Taylor to resist the move to the fence and to keep his mount in the two-wide position.
- At that point, if Mr Wilson-Taylor had remained in the three-wide position and moved away from Mr Callow, the Stewards would have concluded only that there had been interference from Mr Wilson-Taylor constituting careless riding and not been concerned further.
- However, from the 800 metres, Mr Wilson-Taylor rides aggressively with his hands, pushing his mount forward while he is directing it in, buffeting (that is, it may not be constant contact) with Mr Callow’s mount. As the field leaves the 700 metres towards the 600 metres, this continues, Mr Wilson-Taylor trying to dictate Mr Callow’s line, trying to force him back towards the fence behind DARING BELLE, to attempt to result in Mr Wilson-Taylor not being in the three-wide position.
- As this is occurring, Mr Callow is in close proximity to DARING BELLE’s heels. There is insufficient racing room for Mr Callow to be between DARING BELLE and Mr Wilson-Taylor, putting him in a precarious and unsafe position, while noting that Mr Callow is entitled to stay in the two-wide position. Mr Callow puts pressure on his left-hand rein, turning his mount’s head out, to try to hold the two-wide position outside DARING BELLE’s heels; if Mr Callow moves closer to the fence, it is very likely he will make contact with DARING BELLE’s heels.
- From the 900 metres to the 600 metres, the only thing that has changed is that Mr Wilson-Taylor has moved closer to the fence while Mr Callow has continued to maintain his two-wide position over 300 metres, and that has caused Mr Callow to be in a tight and precarious position. Mr Callow maintains his position because he is a skilled rider; he only ever wants to maintain his two-wide position and he does so because that position gives him the best tactical options in the race. Mr Callow’s mount is competing much better than Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount, and Mr Callow went on to win the race.
- The footage shows that Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount is directed in and Mr Callow’s mount is directed out, however Mr Callow is not moving out, trying to follow ACROBATIC; rather he is trying to hold his two-wide position and stay out of DARING BELLE’s heels.
Mr Aurisch
- [32]Mr Aurisch, as Chairman of Stewards for the race, spoke to his observations of the race as captured in the video footage. He said it was very hard for him to see what was going on in the race as it occurred; he had to rely on the Steward on the spot and his interpretation of the video footage.
- [33]I summarise Mr Aurisch’s observations of the race (as he referenced the video footage played at hearing) as follows:
- Approaching the 900 metres, at a point where there is sufficient room to ride Mr Callow to the fence behind DARING BELLE if Mr Callow is so inclined, Mr Wilson-Taylor “asks the question” of Mr Callow, that is Mr Wilson-Taylor moves in, his mount’s head angled towards Mr Callow, and makes minor contact (brushing) with Mr Callow’s mount wanting to direct him to go to the fence behind DARING BELLE to enable Mr Wilson-Taylor a more favourable run. Mr Callow has assessed the race and decides he does not want to follow DARING BELLE. Rather he wants to remain in the one off (or two-wide) position, so he resists Mr Wilson-Taylor’s challenge. At this point in the race, Mr Wilson-Taylor is entitled to ask the question and Mr Callow is entitled to resist and maintain his two-wide position. Mr Callow is a very strong rider and a senior jockey.
- Approaching the 850 metres, ACROBATIC moves from the three-wide to the one off (or two-wide) position. Mr Callow does not want to be behind DARING BELLE on the fence; for competitive advantage, he wants to be behind ACROBATIC in the two-wide position.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor continues to apply pressure to Mr Callow, trying to move Mr Callow to the fence behind DARING BELLE through to the 600 metres. A rider should not have to fight for their position for as long as Mr Callow did. Over this distance, Mr Callow’s racing space gets very tight, he is close to DARING BELLE’s heels, and in an awkward position. At the 600 metres, if Mr Callow had relented, he was very close to danger at DARING BELLE’s heels; he had to ride hard against the pressure.
- Contrast this with careless riding where interference occurs when the rider moves in and out quite quickly. It was the unanimous view of the panel that Mr Wilson-Taylor’s action was more than interference; it was a sustained, deliberate action to move Mr Callow inwards to a point where he was riding very tight towards DARING BELLE.
- There has never been any suggestion that Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount was hanging in or out, that is, moving in a manner that deviates from the rider’s direction.
Mr Wilson-Taylor
- [34]I summarise Mr Wilson-Taylor’s account of his experience of the race as follows:
- Mr Wilson-Taylor agrees that approaching the 900 metres, he asked the question of Mr Callow, that is, he came across tight or snug to see if he would go to the fence. Mr Callow answered no by his action in staying one off (or two-wide).
- A jockey does not have to do much to ask the question. It is common knowledge among jockeys: if there is room, and a jockey comes across and has another jockey tight or snug, nine times out of ten, the other jockey will go to the fence. Jockeys scratch each other’s back: one goes to the fence; two weeks later, the other returns the favour. However, because Mr Callow was on a favourable chance in the race, he wanted to stay one off the fence (or two-wide); but at the same time, it was a bit rude to do this.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor therefore knew he could not be at two-wide, so he maintained his three-wide position, but made sure it was tight and Mr Callow was not going to push him any wider than three-wide.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor was not steering his mount in, he was making sure that Mr Callow did not bully him into moving further out because ACROBATIC had moved to three-wide and Mr Wilson-Taylor wanted to stay on the back of ACROBATIC. Mr Callow also wanted to stay on the back of ACROBATIC; that is why his mount’s head is turned out and he makes contact with Mr Wilson-Taylor as he moves out.
- As this is happening, Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount’s head is turned in to stop Mr Callow from pushing him out; if he let the head go straight, she would run away, as horses are intimidated easily. Mr Callow was going better than him; if he had not done this, Mr Callow would have pushed Mr Wilson-Taylor out of the way. Eventually, when Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount tired, Mr Callow did move out and went on to win the race.
- There may have been buffeting through the race between Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount and Mr Callow’s mount, but not interference that caused checking.
- If Mr Wilson-Taylor had wanted to shift Mr Callow to the fence, he could have done so aggressively, but Mr Callow had beaten him already, so Mr Wilson-Taylor just wanted to maintain his three-wide position behind ACROBATIC and not give Mr Callow an inch. Naturally, his elbow came out to maintain steerage in a tight race; it was more exaggerated as he steered around the turn while holding the line. Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount was a spent force at this stage, so he moved out of the way, and Mr Callow moved from two-wide, to three-wide, to four-wide and won on four-wide.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor said he is as competitive as he can be, that is what jockeys are asked to be. Mr Callow is a jockey of high calibre. His and Mr Callow’s riding in the race was competitive riding.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor understood that Mr Callow was the one to beat in the race. He also understood that ACROBATIC was one to beat, which is why Mr Callow persisted in following ACROBATIC. Even when ACROBATIC did move to three-wide, Mr Callow intended to follow because he knew ACROBATIC was his best chance of having a clear run.
- Similar to cycling in packs, riders need cover from the wind to have the best chance to be competitive. When ACROBATIC was trying to race three-wide, Mr Wilson-Taylor was trying to hold that cover. Mr Callow however was trying to ride his mount for an advantage rather than seeking cover. Mr Callow wanted to follow ACROBATIC because it would help him win the race.
Consideration of evidence
- [35]Mr Wilson-Taylor’s affidavit evidence[7] is consistent with his oral evidence, and in some respects is more detailed.
- [36]I note the affidavit evidence of Mr Schweida,[8] Mr Wilson-Taylor’s then master. Mr Schweida was not called to give evidence at hearing by Mr Wilson-Taylor and did not make himself available for cross examination. I consider that Mr Schweida’s affidavit evidence is somewhat similar to, and does not further illuminate, Mr Wilson-Taylor’s evidence, and on that basis, afford it no weight.
- [37]I note Mr Callow gave evidence at the Stewards’ inquiry; however, he did not provide affidavit evidence for the purposes of the review application and he was not called as a witness by either party. As set out in the audio transcript,[9] Mr Callow said:
I just thought, I didn’t want to follow [W- Dot Bill], and I stayed one off. I just thought Kyle just kept me honest, there was no malice or anything like that and he was just there. That’s what I – out there anyway. I haven’t seen the film, but out there, he just kept me honest, but he didn’t go over the line, I didn’t think, and there was no malice.
Yeah, I was happy to stay one off the fence. But like I said, I didn’t feel intimidated or buffered around too much, I just held my line. I know it’s frustrating when there’s clear air on the inside, but like I said there was no malice.
- [38]I note that Mr Callow makes no reference to feeling in danger, or at risk of danger, as a result of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s conduct.
- [39]I note that Mr Goold, the third Steward who sat on the Stewards’ inquiry, did not provide affidavit evidence for the purposes of the review application and was not called as a witness by either party. Given the evidence from Mr Williamson and Mr Aurisch, I do not consider it necessary to take into account the comments made by Mr Goold during the Stewards’ inquiry.[10]
- [40]I have closely viewed the video footage of the race on many occasions. I have also viewed the bundle of stills, which capture seven point-in-time moments during the race. I prefer the evidence captured by the video footage as it provides continuous context for the conduct of Mr Wilson-Taylor (constituting the charge) and the conduct of Mr Callow.
- [41]Referencing the video footage commencing at elapsed time 01:44, the following occurs at the elapsed times indicated:
- At 01:59 – Mr Callow has moved to two-wide, outside of DARING BELLE.
- At 02:08 – Mr Wilson-Taylor has moved to three-wide, outside of Mr Callow at two-wide. ACROBATIC is positioned in front of Mr Callow and Mr Wilson-Taylor, between two-wide and three-wide.
- At 02:10 – DARING BELLE remains on the fence, Mr Callow remains two-wide, Mr Wilson-Taylor remains three-wide, and ACROBATIC has moved to three-wide.
- At 02:12 – A gap opens up behind DARING BELLE, Mr Wilson-Taylor moves in close to Mr Callow, and Mr Callow maintains his two-wide line. DARING BELLE is on the fence ahead and clear of Mr Callow. Mr Callow’s mount’s head turns out. Mr Wilson-Taylor remains three-wide alongside Mr Callow and behind ACROBATIC.
- At 02:13 – Mr Callow’s mount’s head remains turned out, Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount’s head turns slightly in. Mr Wilson-Taylor remains three-wide alongside Mr Callow and behind ACROBATIC.
- At 02:14 – The camera angle is such that the interaction between Mr Callow’s mount and Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount is largely marred by ACROBATIC in front. Mr Callow’s mount’s head remains turned out, both riders are close riding, and Mr Callow is clear of DARING BELLE.
- At 02:15 – Mr Callow’s mount’s head remains turned out. Mr Wilson-Taylor noses ahead of Mr Callow while both maintaining their lines and close riding. ACROBATIC remains three-wide in front of Mr Wilson-Taylor and the gap is widening. DARING BELLE remains on the fence gaining pace. Mr Callow is clear of DARING BELLE.
- At 02:17 – Mr Callow’s mount’s head remains turned out, and Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount’s head turns in while alongside one another and both maintaining their lines. DARING BELLE and ACROBATIC have moved further ahead, maintaining their lines.
- At 02:20 – Mr Wilson-Taylor gains a head lead on Mr Callow while both maintain their lines. Mr Wilson-Taylor is still following ACROBATIC. Mr Callow is still clear of DARING BELLE.
- At 02:25 – The field is heading into the right-hand turn, which on the footage has the effect of making horses already riding in close proximity look even closer together. This applies to the entire field.
- At 02:26 – Mr Wilson-Taylor and Mr Callow remain three-wide and two-wide respectively and not close riding. ACROBATIC remains three-wide in front of Mr Wilson-Taylor. DARING BELLE remains on the fence, but barely visible.
- At 02:27 – The entire field is closely bunched as it takes the right-hand turn. Mr Wilson-Taylor and ACROBATIC, Mr Callow, and DARING BELLE are three-wide, two-wide, and on the fence respectively. Mr Wilson-Taylor’s right elbow is raised through the turn and appears to make brief contact with Mr Callow and/or his mount. Mr Callow is clear of DARING BELLE’s heels.
- At 02:30 – Mr Callow begins to move out from his two-wide position past Mr Wilson-Taylor towards ACROBATIC in three-wide. Mr Wilson-Taylor maintains his line.
- At 02:33 – Mr Wilson-Taylor begins to move out and drop back and Mr Callow advances towards ACROBATIC.
- This perspective of the race concludes at elapsed time 02:41.
- [42]Referencing the video footage commencing at elapsed time 02:42, the following occurs at the elapsed times indicated:
- At 02:52 – Mr Callow’s mount’s head and Mr Wilson-Taylor’s mount’s head are turned towards one another while maintaining their lines. Mr Wilson-Taylor’s right elbow is raised.
- At 02:54 – Mr Wilson-Taylor and ACROBATIC, Mr Callow, and DARING BELLE are three-wide, two-wide, and on the fence respectively. Mr Wilson-Taylor’s right elbow is still raised.
- At 02:56 – Mr Callow begins to direct his mount towards ACROBATIC, turning his mount’s head further out.
- At 02:57 – Mr Callow moves closer to Mr Wilson-Taylor, while Mr Wilson-Taylor maintains his three-wide line.
- At 02:59 – Mr Wilson-Taylor moves out to four-wide, and Mr Callow takes up three-wide behind ACROBATIC.
- This perspective of the race concludes at elapsed time 03:16.
- [43]I do not consider the video footage commencing at elapsed times 00:00 and 03:17 adds anything further to the perspectives described in the preceding paragraphs.
- [44]The essential question for the Tribunal is whether the riding of Mr Wilson-Taylor was ‘improper riding’ (as charged pursuant to Rule 131(a) of the Australian Rules of Racing) or within the boundaries of competitive riding.
- [45]The meaning of the expression ‘improper riding’ was discussed in Schofield[11] by the Chair of the panel, Judge Lewis, who said:
The initial question in this appeal is whether the stewards have satisfied the Board that the appellants riding was improper, rather than an example of competitive riding. The standard of proof is that laid down in the well-known case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw, that is, the Board must be comfortably satisfied that the charge has been proved, taking into account inter alia the gravity of the charge and the consequences which flow from the conviction.
There is no definition of ‘improper riding’ in the Rules of Racing. However, the Board accepts Dr Pannam’s characterisation that it involves an element of deliberate or intentional conduct which creates danger or potential for danger.
The stewards took the view that in all the circumstances, the Appellant’s riding took him outside the boundaries of competitive riding and represented an egregious example of improper riding.
The appellant argues that what he did was simply an example of competitive riding involving himself and an experienced rider, Ms Payne, who he has alleged for the first time today was partly responsible for the first bump and fully responsible for the second bump.
It is clear that the Rules of Racing as they apply to riders are primarily about safety. They are not penal. The safety of horse and rider in the conduct of racing is paramount. Riders have an obligation to observe the rules of safety which include not to interfere with the right of another horse to its running, as well as the rules under which they ride and are licensed.
The standard of care is that of a rider of reasonable competence, skill and ability. Whether a rider rides improperly will depend upon the extent to which that rider departs from the standard of care imposed on him.
The question of whether a right is improper will be answered by an examination of and an evaluation of all the circumstances of the case.
- [46]There is no definition of the expression ‘competitive riding’, however I consider that Rule 129(2) and (3) informs its meaning:
- A rider must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure the rider’s horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.
- Except where the safety of any horse or rider in a race requires otherwise, every horse must be ridden in such a manner to benefit only its own best interests and not to the advantage of any other horse or rider.
- [47]In deciding the review application, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Commission. To decide that Mr Wilson-Taylor is guilty of the charge of improper riding, the Tribunal must be comfortably satisfied the charge has been proved, that is, comfortably satisfied to the civil standard of proof, being the balance of probabilities, that Mr Wilson-Taylor’s riding (as particularised in the charge):
- involved an element of deliberate or intentional conduct which created danger or potential for danger;
- applying the standard of care of a rider of reasonable competence, skill and ability, failed to observe the rules of safety, including not to interfere with the right of Mr Callow’s mount to its running; and
- was outside the boundaries of competitive riding.
- [48]Messrs Williamson, Aurisch and Wilson-Taylor agree, and I accept that:
- Mr Callow established a two-wide position early in the race, which he was entitled to maintain.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor, in the three-wide position, approaching the 900 metres when room opened up behind DARING BELLE on the fence, moved in close to Mr Callow and asked the question of Mr Callow as to whether he would go to the fence and Mr Callow answered no by maintaining his two-wide position.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor was entitled to ask the question.
- [49]Based on Mr Williamson’s experience as a Racing Steward, I accept his general comments summarised in paragraph [30] of these reasons.
- [50]In other respects relevant to the charge, Messrs Williamson and Aurisch on the one hand, and Messrs Wilson-Taylor and Callow on the other hand, have differing interpretations of the conduct, and the intentions behind the conduct, of Mr Wilson-Taylor (constituting the charge) and of Mr Callow.
- [51]I am bound to make a decision on the evidence before the Tribunal. Where the evidence is conflicting, I must weigh that evidence and decide what evidence I prefer.
- [52]Video footage of the race is before the Tribunal. I have described aspects of this video footage relevant to the charge in considerable detail. Regarding the conduct of Mr Wilson-Taylor (constituting the charge) and the conduct of Mr Callow, I prefer this evidence over any interpretation of their conduct given by any of the witnesses.
- [53]There is detailed evidence before the Tribunal of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s direct experience of the race, in particular his intentions behind his conduct.
- [54]There is evidence before the Tribunal, albeit limited, of Mr Callow’s direct experience of the race, in particular his intentions behind his conduct and his characterisation of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s intentions. Mr Callow is the alleged target of the conduct the subject of the charge and the evidence was given soon after the conclusion of the race.
- [55]I consider that Mr Wilson-Taylor has given credible and consistent evidence of his intentions behind his conduct, which is consistent with and not refuted by Mr Callow’s expression of his own intentions and his characterisation of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s intentions. Regarding the intentions behind the conduct of Mr Wilson-Taylor (constituting the charge) and of Mr Callow, I prefer this evidence over the interpretations of their intentions given by Messrs Williamson and Aurisch.
- [56]On the accepted and preferred evidence, I make the following sequential findings of fact:
- (At elapsed time 01:59) Mr Callow established a two-wide position early in the race, which he was entitled to maintain.
- (At elapsed time 02:12) Mr Wilson-Taylor, in the three-wide position, approaching the 900 metres when room opened up behind DARING BELLE on the fence, moved in close to Mr Callow and asked the question of Mr Callow as to whether he would go to the fence and Mr Callow answered no by maintaining his two-wide position.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor was entitled to ask the question.
- There is insufficient evidence of contact between Mr Wilson-Taylor’s and Mr Callow’s mounts at the stage Mr Wilson-Taylor asked the question.
- (From elapsed time 02:13 to 02:33/02:42 to 02:59) Mr Callow and Mr Wilson-Taylor maintained, and both intended to maintain, their respective two-wide and three-wide positions, riding close.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor was entitled to maintain his three-wide position.
- Mr Callow and Mr Wilson-Taylor directed their mount’s heads outwards and inwards respectively, at varying angles.
- There is insufficient evidence of contact between Mr Wilson-Taylor’s and Mr Callow’s mounts, other than at elapsed time 02:27 when Mr Wilson-Taylor’s right elbow is raised through the turn and appears to make brief contact with Mr Callow and/or his mount.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor directing his mount’s head inwards and raising his elbow through the turn was consistent with him holding his line hard to maintain his three-wide position.
- Mr Callow directing his mount’s head outwards was consistent with him holding his line hard to maintain his two-wide position before later turning his mount’s head out further (at elapsed time 02:56), beginning to move closer to Mr Wilson-Taylor (at elapsed time 02:57/58) and taking up the three-wide position (at elapsed time 02:59).
- There is insufficient evidence of Mr Callow being in such proximity to DARING BELLE’s heels as to be in danger or at risk of danger as a result of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s conduct.
- There is insufficient evidence of Mr Callow or any other rider being in danger or at risk of danger as a result of Mr Wilson-Taylor’s conduct.
- [57]Based on my findings of fact, I am not comfortably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:
- The particulars of the charge set out in paragraphs [12] and [13] of these reasons are proved.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor’s riding involved an element of deliberate or intentional conduct which created danger or potential for danger.
- Applying the standard of care of a rider of reasonable competence, skill and ability, Mr Wilson-Taylor failed to observe the rules of safety, including not to interfere with the right of Mr Callow’s mount to its running.
- Mr Wilson-Taylor’s riding was outside the boundaries of competitive riding.
Submissions
- [58]Post hearing, on 14 October 2024, Mr Taylor filed in the Tribunal updated submissions of submissions previously filed on behalf of Mr Wilson-Taylor.
- [59]Post hearing, on 14 October 2024, Mr Kelly filed in the Tribunal submissions on behalf of the Commission.
- [60]On 14 October 2024, Mr Taylor filed objections to Mr Kelly’s submissions and sought leave from the Tribunal to file submissions in reply.
- [61]I have had regard to the submissions filed on the parties’ behalf in making my findings. I do not consider it is necessary to address Mr Taylor’s request for leave to file submissions in reply.
Footnotes
[1] Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [8].
[2] QCAT Act, s 21.
[3] Stewards Report dated 13 July 2022, page 4.
[4] Transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry, lines 183 to 195.
[5] Ibid, line 202.
[6] Ibid, lines 209 and 210.
[7] Affidavit of Kyle Wilson-Taylor sworn 10 February 2023.
[8] Affidavit of Kelly Schweida sworn 10 February 2023.
[9] Transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry, lines 46 to 50; 67 to 70. W-Dot Bill in square brackets is likely to be a reference to Jockey Wendy Peel riding DARING BELLE.
[10] Transcript of the audio of the Stewards’ inquiry, various lines.
[11] Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board Victoria, 26 September 2014 – Jockey: Chad Schofield, cited in Thomas v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] QCAT 106.