JUSTICE V HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-000895

JUSTICE V HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-000895

Rule 1004(4) when read in its statutory and regulatory context imposes absolute liability for breaches under r1004(2) and (3); the provision is not Wednesbury unreasonable; non-disclosure by a third party laboratory (QRSC) did not vitiate proceedings because the reserve analysis was not an element of the offence and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-cf2f7bde_7202_4041_a218_bc40eedb54f6.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Lance Justice; First Respondent: Harness Racing New Zealand; Second Respondent: Racing Integrity Unit; Third Respondent: A Judicial Committee; Fourth Respondent: An Appeals Tribunal
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; decisions of the Judicial Committee and Appeals Tribunal upheld
Legal Topics
Absolute Liability, Strict Liability, Procedural Fairness, Disclosure, Drug Testing, Swabbing Procedures, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Sports Law Regulatory Enforcement Evidence Law Absolute Liability Strict Liability Procedural Fairness Disclosure +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Justice

Applicant

Harness Racing New Zealand

First Respondent

Racing Integrity Unit

Second Respondent

A Judicial Committee

Third Respondent

An Appeals Tribunal

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breach of r1004 is an offence of absolute liability
  2. 2 Whether r1004 is unreasonable (Wednesbury)
  3. 3 Whether QRSC was required to provide full disclosure of methodology and reserve sample

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 1004(4) when read in its statutory and regulatory context imposes absolute liability for breaches under r1004(2) and (3); the provision is not Wednesbury unreasonable; non-disclosure by a third party laboratory (QRSC) did not vitiate proceedings because the reserve analysis was not an element of the offence and the NZRLS primary analysis sufficed; alleged swabbing and control sample defects did not render the hearing substantively unfair; therefore the Judicial Committee and Appeals Tribunal decisions upholding disqualification stand.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; decisions of the Judicial Committee and Appeals Tribunal upheld

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Decisions of the Judicial Committee and Appeals Tribunal upheld