William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

Date: 12 April 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Lee
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 8, 13(1), 21, 58
Rights Considered: Right to freedom of expression
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 19(c), 20(1)(2), 24(1); Racing Act 2002 (Qld) ss 4(1), 100(2)(a)(b), 101; Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld) ss 3(b), 24, 63(a)(b), 240(1), 243(1), 245, 246
Keywords: Education, Training and Employment; Public Law Considerations

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

The case concerned an application for review of a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct regarding the upload of an audio recording of the appellant containing offensive language. The applicant submitted that his freedom of speech has been impacted and that the Rule 228(b) was incompatible with the objects of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [44].

The Tribunal set out section 21 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and considered that ‘it has been engaged and potentially limited by the decision of the Tribunal:’ at [46]-[47]. However, the Tribunal considered that the right to freedom of expression may be subjected to ‘reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’ and that ‘decision-makers can make decisions that limit freedom of expression to the extent that is reasonably and demonstrably justifiable:’ at [48].

The Tribunal found that the limitations on Mr Hulbert’s human rights were justified as ‘the application of Rule 228(b) was a modest curtailment of his right of freedom of expression and is accordingly the least restrictive means by which to achieve the objects of the Acts;’ the curtailment of offensive language was reasonable and proportionate in a professional racing context and ‘the human right engaged has been balanced against the risk to the wider racing community if the unrestricted use of otherwise offensive language is not curtailed:’ at [49].

Visit the judgment: William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130