Hanrahan v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2026] QCATA 49

Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld), s 252AU

Evans v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2025] QCATA 80

[1] The question on this appeal concerns the scope of appeals to the Tribunal from the Queensland Racing Appeals Panel ('the Panel'), pursuant to s 252AU of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) ('the Act'). Section 252AU of the Act provides, in part:

(1) This section applies if -

(a) the panel's decision on a panel review application includes the taking of disqualification action against a person; and

(b) a person who is a party to the application is dissatisfied with the panel's decision.

(2) The person may appeal to the appeal tribunal against the panel's decision only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action.

[2] In particular, the question is what is meant by the term 'only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action'.

[3] In the present matter, the Panel found the appellant guilty of three presentation offences under the Australian Harness Racing Rules (as at 26 June 2025) ('the Rules'). It was alleged that the appellant presented a horse, Crossed Legs, to compete at three separate race meetings with a prohibited substance in its system, namely cobalt, at a level above the regulatory threshold.

[4] Before the Panel, the appellant submitted that for the purposes of the Rules a distinction should be drawn between inorganic (cobalt salts) and organic cobalt; that, in the present case, any cobalt present in the horse's urine could only have been the result of the use of vitamin B12, which may contain organically based cobalt and which is not performance enhancing; and that it is only inorganic cobalt that is prohibited under the Rules. The Panel rejected that submission. Reference was made to Rule 190, which provides, in part:

(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.

(2) If a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with sub rule (1) the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence.

(4) An offence under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.

[5] Rule 188A(1)(k) provides that 'prohibited substances' include: 'Cobalt at a concentration of 100 micrograms per litre in urine or 25 micrograms per litre in plasma'.

[6] The Panel found that Rule 188A(1)(k) does not distinguish between cobalt salts and other forms of cobalt and is concerned only with the total concentration in the sample. At the hearing of the appeal, the applicant noted that the Rules do make a distinction between forms of cobalt, pointing to Rule 194B, which creates an offence where a person has in their possession or on their premises an injectable product containing 'cobalt salts', and Rule 196E, which creates an offence where, broadly, a person administers a product containing 'cobalt salts' to a horse by injection. However, the fact that Rule 188A(1)(k) does not specify cobalt salts may be indicative of an intention not to distinguish the forms of cobalt for the purposes of that rule.

[7] Be that as it may, it is evident that by the terms of s 252AU of the Act the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a decision of the Panel in relation to whether or not the underlying offence has been established. Any such challenge would need to be taken through judicial review before the courts.

[8] The reason why the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider that issue is evident from the limiting words of s 252AU(2) of the Act: an appeal to the Tribunal may be made 'only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action'. The term 'extent' is commonly understood to mean length, area or size: see, for example, the Collins Dictionary.

[9] It is evident that that is the intention of s 252AU(2) of the Act. Report No. 18 of the 57th Parliament - Education, Employment and Training Committee ('the Committee'), at paragraph 2.2.2.2 states (footnotes omitted):

The Queensland Law Society (QLS) queried the meaning of 'extent' in proposed s 252AU(2) which, as noted above, provides that a person 'may appeal to the appeal tribunal against the panel's decision only on a question of law relating to the extent of the disqualification action'.

Specifically, the QLS queried whether the Bill provided for an appeal on the law as to the 'extent' of the period (of suspension of cancellation), or the 'extent' to which, for example, suspension or cancellation was appropriate, or whether the intention was to further limit what aspect of a 'disqualification action' may be appealed.

The department clarified that 'extent' in this provision is intended to refer to the size of the penalty, that is, 'an appeal will be permitted only on the basis that the imposed penalty, lasting three months or more, is either manifestly inadequate or excessive'.

[10] At recommendation 3 of the Committee's recommendations, it is stated:

The committee recommends that the Minister in her second reading speech clarify the intended meaning of 'extent' in clause 24 (proposed section 252AU(2)) of the Bill.

[11] On 25 October 2022, the Minister for Racing tabled the Racing Integrity Amendment Bill 2022 (Qld), as well as the Explanatory Note. In the latter, it is noted:

New section 252AU limits the matters that a party dissatisfied with the Panel's decision on their review application may appeal to QCAT appeal tribunal. The appealable decisions will be limited to a decision of the Panel which includes disqualification action, which is a disciplinary action relating to the person's approval or licence or exclusion action against the person that prevents a person from betting, bookmaking, racing an animal or attending a race meeting for 3 months or longer, and only on a question of law relating to the disqualification action.

This approach is justified because an objective of establishing an independent review panel is to finalise review applications in a shorter timeframe. Limiting appeals to the QCAT appeal tribunal is consistent with the approach taken in New South Wales and Victoria which allows matters to be finalised quickly. Any errors of law or procedural fairness will still be subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991.

[12] With reference to the approach taken in New South Wales, generally appeals arising from decisions made under the Rules are directed to the Racing Appeals Tribunal and not the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In relation to Victoria, s 83OH(1) of the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) provides:

A person whose interests are affected by a decision made by the Victorian Racing Tribunal may apply to VCAT for review of that decision in relation to a penalty imposed on the person by the Victorian Racing Tribunal.

[13] As noted above, an appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to s 252AU(2) of the Act is available 'only on a question of law' relating to the extent of the disqualification action. In Evans v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, it was said:[1]

[7] Commonly, such an appeal will be on the basis that the penalty is manifestly excessive, which raises a question of law. Potentially, parity is at the heart of that question. In Green v The Queen ('Green'), though in the context of criminal proceedings, French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ stated at [28] (references omitted):

'Equal justice' embodies the norm expressed in the term 'equality before the law'. It is an aspect of the rule of law. ... It requires, so far as the law permits, that like cases be treated alike.

Consistency in the punishment of offences against the criminal law is 'a reflection of the notion of equal justice' and 'is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice'. It finds expression in the 'parity principle' which requires that like offenders should be treated in a like manner. As with the norm of 'equal justice', which is its foundation, the parity principle allows for different sentences to be imposed upon like offenders to reflect different degrees of culpability and/or different circumstances.

[8] It is to be imagined that it was intended that an appeal confined 'to the extent of the disqualification action' would incorporate, within the framework of a question of law, an appeal based on what is said to be a marked disparity in relation to penalty in like cases. Otherwise, 'the notion of equal justice' referred to in Green might be compromised...

[14] In oral submissions before the Tribunal, the applicant stated that her submissions were confined to the proposition that for the purposes of Rule 188A(1)(k), the term 'cobalt' was limited to non-organic cobalt and, in that context, the offence had not been established and no penalty should have been imposed. She submitted that if the Tribunal could not consider the question of liability for the underlying offence, then she did not wish to make any other or further submissions in relation to penalty. In particular, it was not a ground of appeal and no submissions were made to the effect that, for the offence that the Panel found to have been established, the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law.

[15] In the circumstances outlined, the appeal is dismissed.

[1] [2025] QCATA 80.