Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2026] QCAT 367

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2026] QCAT 367 PARTIES: BENJAMIN CURRIE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND RACING INTEGRITY COMMISSION (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR029-26 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 6 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 21 July 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Richard Oliver ORDERS: The decision of the respondent refusing to grant the applicant a stablehand licence is set aside. The respondent forthwith issue a stablehand licence to the applicant. CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – REVIEW – where the applicant was the holder of a stablehand licence – where the applicant was in charge of a horse that presented at a race meeting with a prohibited substance – where the applicant was disqualified from holding a stablehand licence for 9 months – where applicant applied for a stablehand licence at the expiration of the disqualification period – where the application was rejected by the respondent – where rejection confirmed on review – where applicant is required to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence – where conceded the applicant is a fit person but not a proper person to hold a licence – whether the applicant’s disciplinary history rendered him not a proper person – whether continuing refusal to grant the stablehand licence constitutes a further penalty – whether the effluxion of time, conduct since disqualification and references render him a proper person to hold a licence – whether licence should be granted with conditions. -- 1 of 11 -- 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 and 21. Queensland Racing Integrity Act 246. Australian Rules of Racing 242(2), 53A, 68, 175,178 and 178AB. Standard for Licencing Scheme – Thoroughbreds V2.03. Aldrich v Ross [2000] 501. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321. Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 240. Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] RAP 19. Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332I Kell v Board of Professional Engineers for Queensland [2010] QCATA 53. Re Control Investment Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No2) (1981) 3 ALD 88. Willmot v Careless [2024] QCA 115. APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant Mr Murdoch KC instructed by Cullen Lawyers Respondent Mr Anderson KC instructed by the respondent REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] On 22 May 2023 Mr Currie was disqualified from holding a stablehand licence for a period of nine (9) months when he was found to have been a person in charge of a horse that was presented for racing with a prohibited substance under rule 242(2) of the Australian Rules of Racing. At the end of the period of disqualification on 22 February 2025, he applied to the respondent for a stablehand licence. [2] On 12 November 2025 the respondent rejected his application on the grounds he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The original decision was confirmed on 24 December 2025 after an internal review. [3] On 29 January 2026 Mr Currie filed an application to review the decision of the respondent not to issue him with a stablehand licence pursuant to section 246 of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (“RIA”). In conducting a review of the respondent’s decision under Part 1 Division 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the function of the tribunal is to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits and produce the correct and preferable decision. This is achieved by reference to all of the material field pursuant to s 21(2) of the QCAT Act, as well as the further affidavit material filed by the applicant. No oral evidence was given at the hearing nor was the applicant cross-examined on the material in his affidavit. Therefore, there no serious dispute of fact. -- 2 of 11 -- 3 [4] The respondent contends that the Tribunal should have regard to the special expertise and knowledge of the respondent decision makers of the racing industry in coming to the decision. Reliance is placed on what Davies J said in Re Control Investment Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No2) (1981) 3 ALD 88 at 92: Section 33(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal Act empowers the Tribunal to inform itself on any matter in such a manner as it thinks appropriate. If the Tribunal considers it appropriate in its review to rely upon a finding of fact set out in the reasons of the decision-maker, it may, in my opinion do so. In a case where the decision-maker is a person or Tribunal having a special expertise or knowledge of facts in a particular area, it may well be appropriate to do so. [5] The statement is similar to what Thomas J said in Aldrich v Ross1 that when conducting a merits review hearing2 of a police disciplinary proceeding it may be appropriate to ‘give considerable weight to the view of the original decision-maker who might be thought to have particular expertise in the managerial requirements of the police force’. [6] However the issues in the review application, given the concessions properly made by the respondent do not, in my view, involve any special or particular expertise. The fundamental requirement for any licensee under the RIA is that an applicant must be assessed as a ‘fit and proper’ person under the Standard for Licencing Scheme – Thoroughbreds V2.03. The Standard sets out the relevant criteria to meet the Standard. [7] Here the respondent accepts that the applicant meets the criteria of being a ‘fit’ person to hold a licence but does not accept he satisfies the criteria of ‘proper’. That is the basis of the respondent’s rejection of the application for the licence, and the sole issue for determination in this review application. [8] When considering the criteria of ‘proper’ under the Standard, it includes the following. "Proper" The requirements to be considered “proper” relate to the general level of integrity of the person. Proper is primarily concerned with general behaviour and conduct inclusive of: • history; • reputation; • integrity; • honesty; and • character. Propriety will be assessed on the basis of general behaviour and conduct by an applicant, or an executive officer of an applicant (refer to the Act), in particular any evidence of: • an applicant’s previous racing disciplinary history; • any previous acts of dishonesty by the applicant or an executive officer of the applicant; • improper behaviour towards an official or employee of the Commission or RQ (Racing Queensland) and other licensed participants or animals; • any conduct or statement made by the applicant, or an executive officer of the applicant, that would impact on the applicant’s reputation and more broadly on the reputation of other licence holders, the Commission, an official or employee of the Commission or RQ or the Queensland racing industry as a whole; 1 [2000] QCA 501 at [44] 2 Before Willmot v Careless [2024] QCA 115 -- 3 of 11 -- 4 • an ability of the applicant, and any executive officers of the applicant, to consistently operate within the requirements of the racing legislation, a Standard, policies of RQ, the Rules of Racing and any other laws and regulations in the State of Queensland, another State, or the Commonwealth, including any gambling and gaming legislation; • bad behaviour and/or misconduct by the applicant, or an executive officer of the applicant, including police; • records, court records and letters of complaint regarding the licence holder; • a failure to adequately demonstrate sufficient and acceptable financial means to fulfil the requirements of the licence; or • where a licence holder or applicant for a licence has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offence in Queensland, any state or territory of Australia or in any other country. [9] It would seem that the only item relevant to the assessment of the applicants general behaviour and conduct is his previous racing disciplinary history. There is no dispute about the history and therefore the reasons of the respondent in rejecting the application have little relevance. Also, I am reminded of what the then Deputy President of the Tribunal said in Kell v Board of Professional Engineers for Queensland [2010] QCATA 53 at [9]: The Tribunal’s role in exercising review jurisdiction is to reconsider the original decision and to make the correct and preferable decision. The review is conducted on the merits, by way of a fresh hearing. Unlike judicial review, the Tribunal’s function is to review the decision – not the process by which it was arrived at, nor the reasons given for making it. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not required to identify an error in either the process or the reasoning that led to the decision being made. There is no presumption the original decision is correct. Relevant uncontested history [10] The applicant is aged in his mid-30s. He has a long history of involvement in the racing industry. His father Mark Currie was a notable thoroughbred trainer and had stables in Toowoomba for many years. The applicant recalls working in his father’s stables from a young age. He worked as a strapper at age 14, stablehand and then under the guidance of his father obtained a trainer’s licence in 2009 when only 18 years of age. He then commenced the training business, Currie Racing. [11] He quickly became heavily involved in training starting with about 29 runners in the 2009/2010 season and steadily increasing the numbers until the 2018/2019 season when he had 636 runners. Obviously, training this number of horses required hard work, long hours and diligence. The applicant deposes to the training routine in his affidavit sworn 30 December 20213(“1 st affidavit”). This involved taking horses from the stables at Hursley Rd to the Clifford Park racing facility in Toowoomba from about 4:00am. He would be at the track from about 3:30am and supervise the trackwork and training generally during the morning. He would then work well into the evening each day. [12] As to race days, the applicant provided a brief explanation as to what was involved with multiple horses. Because of the number of horses in the stable, not infrequently Currie Racing had runners in multiple race meetings six days of the week. On Saturdays, often 3 Attached to the affidavit filed in the proceeding on 30 March 2026. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 horses ran at the metropolitan meeting, at the supporting provincial meeting, usually at the Gold Coast, at any non-TAB meeting, for example, Kilcoy and the evening meeting at Toowoomba. This increased the need for experienced licensed staff to travel with the horses to various tracks. [13] With the number of horses in work, and use of the stables at Clifford Park, the applicant estimates his monthly costs in 2018 was about $140,000. This included staff wages, transport, farrier costs, feed bills, veterinary and chiropractic fees. Income was derived from percentage of winnings and training fees. It is evident from his summary that Currie Racing was a significant enterprise. [14] In 2019 the applicant was confronted with a number of serious allegations concerning breaches of the Rules of Racing resulting in review proceedings in the Tribunal. In particular he was initially disqualified for a period of 27 months on presentation charges in relation to three horses, which penalty was reduced to 10 months in respect of one horse only.4 [15] Subsequent to the suspension the applicant applied for a trainer’s licence, but this was refused by the respondent. Review proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal in respect of this decision. [16] During this time, there were other investigations undertaken by Stewards and as a consequence a number of other breaches of the Rules were alleged against him. In summary, these breaches included: giving false evidence to stewards (AR 175); administering a prohibited substances (AR 175(a)); nominating a horse solely for the purpose of affecting the weights allocated to other horses (AR68A); causing a horse/s to be injected with substances within a prohibited period (AR 178AB(1)); deleting and sending incriminating phone messages (AR175(t)(q); failing to report medical conditions (bleeding) AR53A(2)(6); presentation with prohibited substance (AR(178) and subjecting horses to electronic apparatus therapy (AR175(n).5 In total there were an additional 19 breaches of the Rules that were alleged by the respondent and each one challenged by the applicant. [17] In respect of all the above alleged breaches and outstanding review applications commenced in the Tribunal, there were negotiations between the parties, and a compromise agreement was reached as to the disposition of all pending charges and proceedings. The terms of agreement are included in the material filed.6 Although the applicant accepted some of the charges in Schedule 2, “for the purposes of settling ongoing disputation” others in Schedule 1 were withdrawn. The effect of this concession does not necessarily establish that the outstanding charges have been proved, although accepted by the applicant. This is a relevant factor to take into account when considering the disciplinary history. [18] In accordance with that agreement the Tribunal made a Consent Order on 11 February 2022.7 The Order gave effect to the agreement and orders were made effectively disposing of all outstanding charges against the applicant as well as the applicant’s review proceeding in relation to his application for a trainer’s licence. The benefit to the applicant is that by the Order QRIC would grant to the applicant a “Stablehand 4 Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2020] QCAT 240 5 Affidavit of Benjamin Mark Currie filed 30 March 2026 “BCM 1” page 2. 6 1 st Currie affidavit Ex ‘BCM 1’. 7 The order was made in Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission OCR300-21 and OCR339- 21 (unreported) -- 5 of 11 -- 6 licence” subject to the conditions contained in paragraph 4 of the Order. Those conditions provided in general that the applicant could only undertake the duties of a stablehand under the supervision, and at the stables, of Mark Currie. After 6 months, the applicant could apply for a Stable Foreperson licence. Also, a closed circuit television system was to be installed at the stables. [19] As Mr Murdoch KC submitted, the Order drew a line under all outstanding matters, and the applicant could start afresh under the QRIC licensing regime. Also, as the respondent has put it, the Order provided a pathway for the applicant to return to being a licensed trainer. [20] However, things went awry on 17 December 2022 when the applicant, with two other stablehands took a horse trained by Mark Currie, End Assembly, to the Eagle Farm Racecourse to race in race 8. End Assembly won the race. A post-race swab detected a prohibited substance, being cocaine. As a consequence, the horse was disqualified and the stewards conducted an inquiry on 16 March 2023. After considering evidence presented at the inquiry the applicant was charged under AR240(2) for being a person in charge of a horse participating in a race with prohibited substance on Prohibited List A and/or Prohibited List B. There is no dispute that cocaine is a prohibited substance. [21] The stewards were satisfied that the applicant was a person in charge of End Assembly and disqualified him from holding a stablehand licence for a period of 18 months from 22 May 2023. The stewards had regard to his disciplinary history. The trainer Mark Currie was also found to have breached the rule and was fined $10,000.00. [22] The applicant applied for a review of the steward’s decision before the Racing Appeals Panel. The Panel conducted a hearing on 12 June 2023 and delivered its reasons on 20 June 2023.8 Given the applicant’s experience, the Panel was very critical of the way he discharged his responsibilities as a person in charge of a horse, and his supervision of End Assembly, when at the racecourse. But the Panel determined the penalty imposed was excessive in circumstances where there was no satisfactory explanation as to how the horse was administered the prohibited substance.9 The Panel, affirmed the decision as to the applicant’s breach of the Rule, but varied the disqualification period down from 18 months to 9 months. [23] At the end of the disqualification period on 22 February 2024 the applicant applied for a stablehand licence. As Mr Murdoch KC observed, that in most cases when a licensee has been disqualified for a breach of the Rules, the licence is generally reinstated after an application is made at the end of the disqualification period. I accept this to be the case and there was no challenge to this. However, in the applicant’s case, he was one of the rare exceptions. The application was rejected and the rejection, after an internal review, was affirmed on 24 December 2025. It has now been about 38 months since the initial disqualification. Is the applicant a “proper” person to hold a licence [24] The respondent having conceded that by virtue of the applicant’s significant experience in racing generally, he is a fit person to hold a licence, the only issue in 8 Currie v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2023] RAP 19. 9 Wallace v Queensland Racing [2007] QDC 168 at [69]. -- 6 of 11 -- 7 dispute is whether he is a proper person to hold a licence. It is somewhat unusual where there is disputation about only on part of the phrase ‘fit and proper’. [25] The respondent submits that it is necessary to look closely at the applicant’s integrity and character rather than his knowledge of the duties and responsibilities as a stablehand. This requires the decision maker to critically examine his history, compliance with the rules of racing which govern the conduct of all licensees in the industry, and then whether the public can have confidence in his integrity to discharge the responsibilities of a stablehand. [26] Understandably, significant emphasis has been placed on the applicant’s disciplinary history as a licensed trainer as it is extensive. However, some of it can be compartmentalised as ‘technical breaches’. By reference to the above summary of beaches alleged by the respondent, which were compromised in the Order, they are still serious, and numerous, over a period of time. The applicant contends that when the particulars of the some of the alleged breaches are explained, many are at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. That may be the case but there were still serious breaches, prior to the End Assembly incident, which were established and resulted in periods of disqualification. [27] The applicant does not shy away from the history but contends that the outstanding charges and other proceedings were all, as it were, wrapped up in the Order. There is some substance to that submission in this case where there was a compromise. But when considering the applicant’s suitability to be licensed under the RIA, it would be remiss of the licensing authority to not take the whole history into account to ensure the integrity of the licensing process and ensure public confidence. [28] I do propose to have regard to the earlier breaches resulting in disqualification. As for the charges that are referred to in the compromise agreement, although accepted for the purpose of compromise they do fall into a slightly different category to the actual proved breaches resulting in a penalty. What they do establish, is that the respondent was satisfied that there were breaches of the rules and was prepared to prosecute the applicant in respect of those breaches had an agreement not been reached. The outcome of that does, to a degree, remain uncertain. The applicant accepted the breaches in schedule 2 for the purposes of efficacy to reach a compromise. [29] The respondent contends that the repeated offending in the past demonstrates a risk of reoffending in the future, as occurred in the End Assembly matter. Although the offending there was serious, the conduct attributed to the applicant was not found to be intentional but was more a lack of care in supervising the horse at the Eagle Farm stables before the race. No actual blameworthy conduct on the part of the applicant was found to have occurred in respect of the actual administration of the prohibited substance. This is reflected in the downgrade of the disqualification period by the Panel. [30] The respondent seems critical that after the period of disqualification for the End Assembly matter, the applicant immediately sought to have his stablehand licence restored through two applications. The obvious purpose of this was so he could return to the industry in the shortest time possible. As already observed there is nothing unusual in a licensee applying for a licence in the category for which he or she was disqualified at the termination of the disqualification. This is not a disqualifying factor in my view. Also, even if it were to be considered, it has lost its relevance now that nearly 30 months have passed since the disqualification period ended. -- 7 of 11 -- 8 [31] The respondent quite properly concedes that that a licensee ‘can never recover from past indiscretions’. It is submitted that the effluxion of time will determine whether the applicant has fully realised the error of his ways, rehabilitated and engenders confidence that he will comply with all of the obligations of a licensee under the RIA and the Rules of Racing going forward. The respondent relies on what Gillard J said in Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332, a case which involved an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Board to refuse to issue him with a certificate that he was a fit and proper person to be admitted to practice as a barrister and solicitor in Victoria. The passage relied upon is at [70] where his Honour was discussing the need to overcome the presumption of not being a fit and proper person based on past conduct. He said: …it will take, in my view, many years of blameless conduct before one could have any confidence that the appellant has shed his past, turned over a new leaf and intends to pursue a blameless and honest career. [32] In that case the appellant was 50 years of age, had been convicted of criminal offences of dishonesty, and had been sentenced to a period of imprisonment. A fuller description of the past conduct is contained in [17]. It would seem that the serious past conduct of fraud, deception, dishonesty and allegations of perjury may well have led his Honour to make the comment of ‘many years’. The other feature of the case is that the issue was whether the appellant was a ‘fit and proper’ person whereas here, we are only concerned whether the applicant is a ‘proper’ person, that is a person of proprietary. [33] What I draw from the case, and to be fair to the respondent it was put on this basis, that the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct will determine the period of blameless conduct that must pass before eligibility for the licence arises. The other point to make in respect of this case is that the conduct was anti-social and dishonest conduct under the general law. It was not conduct, obviously, confined to the legal profession he sought to be part of. Here the conduct is solely related to the Rules governing the racing industry. The applicant is otherwise of good character with no convictions or any other conduct that would impact his suitability. [34] As Mr Murdoch KC submitted, the only way the applicant can satisfy the concerns that he will continue to comply with the Rules is if he is an active licensee in the racing industry. Also, he will be returning to the lowest level of licensing, a stablehand under the supervision of a licensed trainer. [35] It is timely here to mention the references, there are many. A schedule of the references is attached to the affidavit filed sworn on 21 December 2021. The references relate to the application for a trainer’s licence and pre-date the End Assembly matter. Without addressing each reference, it is suffice to say that the referees include trainers, owners, professionals in the industry and those who have a knowledge of his involvement in the industry. Each referee speaks very highly of the applicant and support his return to racing, at that time, as a trainer. [36] Subsequently, in support of the application for a stablehand licence more up to date references were provided to the respondent. Again, without addressing each one, there are 22 current references supporting the applicant, again speaking highly of his character, expertise and diligence in the industry. [37] The respondent decision maker, in considering the application, sought the views of Mr Adams, the Chief Thoroughbred Stipendiary Steward, seeking his -- 8 of 11 -- 9 recommendation as to the applicant’s suitability to hold a licence. Mr Adams has full knowledge of the applicant’s history, probably in more detail than that referred to in the material and above. Mr Adams sent an email to the decision maker on 10 November 2025 saying that he had no objection to the applicant holding a stablehand licence subject to conditions. The content of the email is more instructive because he, in consultation with other stewards, had considered the application in the previous 12 months. I am writing to advise that I do not object to Mr Ben Currie to be granted a Stable Hand Licence subject to strict conditions. It has not been twelve months since Mr Currie was interviewed in relation to his previous stable hand application in September 2024, at which time both Deputy Chief Steward Geoff Goold and I did not object his licensing with special conditions. The additional passage of time further supports that position. [38] The suggested conditions were that he must hold a stablehand licence for a minimum of 6 months before consideration is given to any application to upgrade to Foreperson status. Also, that he is not to act as a “person in charge’ at a race meeting, official trial, or jump-out.10 [39] Considerable weight must be given to Mr Adam’s opinion who is acutely aware of the applicant’s history. Also, by reason of the fact that the stewards are actively involved in ensuring compliance with the Rules, lay the charges for non-compliance and impose penalties on all categories of licensees. Had Mr Adam’s recommendation been adopted initially then (subject to acceptance of conditions) the applicant would have returned to the industry at a much earlier date. I find that this evidence is very persuasive. [40] In addition to his considerable experience as a trainer, the applicant has since the disqualification, undertaken a number of courses to further improve his skills, knowledge and understanding of the role of licensees in the industry. The courses are: • Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Biosecurity Course • Thoroughbred Breeders Australia Horse Handling Course • Learning Module: Stable Protocols and Procedures for Horse Care at Race Meetings in Australia. [41] The last is of particular significance given the criticism of his supervision of End Assembly resulting in the disqualification. [42] Finally, the respondent’s position is that although the applicant is fit to hold a licence, more time needs to pass to establish he is proper to hold a license. He must demonstrate that he has ‘turned over a new leaf’ to adopts the words of Gillard J. One can then rhetorically ask, how much time is enough time. [43] After 30 months, plus the 9 months disqualification, the applicant has not engaged in any conduct which reflects badly on him or the racing industry. In fact, he has improved his knowledge of animal management by reference to the courses he has undertaken. In that time, he has removed himself from the industry and now it is time to return. 10 Section 21(2) documents at page 71 -- 9 of 11 -- 10 [44] I am of the view that more than enough time has passed to satisfy the ‘time’ component. The only way he can now demonstrate whether he has turned over a ‘new leaf’, as a licensee, is to grant him a licence. Any further breaches of the Rules by the applicant will, I expect, result in more significant penalties with the ultimate sanction for repeated serious misconduct being ‘warned off’. Conclusion [45] After a series of breaches of the Rules and review proceedings commenced in the Tribunal, before the establishment of the Racing Appeals Panel, the applicant and the respondent reached an agreement as to the disposition of all those matters resulting in the Order referred to above. The applicant was issued with a stablehand licence as consequence of that. He was disqualified for a period of 9 months on 22 May 2023 for the End Assembly presentation matter. At the end of the disqualification period, he applied to regain his stablehand licence. The application was rejected by the respondent, hence this review application. [46] The term ‘fit and proper’ is widely used to decide whether a person should have the benefit of a licence under the RIA or other legislation where a license is issued by Government authorities. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at [36] the High Court provide a useful guide to considering ‘fit and proper’: The expression ‘fit and proper person’ standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of ‘fit and proper’ cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is, or will be engaging in, those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to the likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground the finding that a person is not a fit and proper person to be undertaking the activities in question. [47] Using this as a guide, the many references referred to and included in the s 21(2) documents speak to the applicant’s character and integrity. It is also supported by his endeavours to advance his knowledge of the industry. Apart from the occupational breaches of the Rules, he has no disentitling antecedent conduct/behaviour. He is a law abiding citizen, a family man and respected in his community. There is no objection from the Chief Steward to him holding a licence, subject to conditions. He has not shied away from his past behaviours and has therefore demonstrated acceptance and remorse. [48] In these circumstances to continue to refuse to grant him a stablehand licence would, in my view, constitute further punishment which is not the object of the licensing system or the imposition of sanctions, the purpose of which is deterrence, discipline and rehabilitation. [49] As to the question of conditions as recommended by Mr Adams, after all this time I am confident that the applicant has a complete understanding of his functions as a stablehand, and responsibilities if in charge of a horse at a race meeting, track work or jump-out. All of these matters more generally relate to his fitness rather than proprietary. Given the consequences arising from the End Assembly incident, I am -- 10 of 11 -- 11 also confident that if he is intent on returning to a career in training, he will be extra vigilant when in charge of an animal. [50] Therefore, the correct and preferable decision is that the decision of the respondent be set aside and that the applicant be issued with a stablehand licence. [51] There will be an order to that effect. -- 11 of 11 --