The Court held that a person permanently warned off from the harness racing industry is not bound by the Australian Harness Racing Rules and cannot be charged or penalised by HRNSW stewards under those Rules, because the Rules depend for their force on consent manifested through participation (per Local Rule 1A and the authorities in Golden v V'landys and Commissioner of Taxation v Racing Queensland Board), and a warned-off person is by definition prohibited from all participation. The Court further held that invoking a statutory right of appeal to the Harness Racing Appeal Panel does not constitute submission to the Rules so as to confer jurisdiction on the stewards, distinguishing Meyers v Casey on the basis that the Appeal Panel's powers were co-extensive with (not broader than) the stewards' powers. The Court left open, without final determination, whether the phrase 'otherwise having a connection with' the harness racing industry in r 231(1)(e) encompasses only current connections or also past connections, expressing concern that the present-tense language may limit the class of protected persons to those with a current connection.
The full text is available to signed-in members.