Disgraced trainer Tom Noble wins property fight

A COURT has ruled disgraced greyhound trainer Tom Noble can keep his Queensland property even though it was used for live-baiting.

Tom Noble has won his battle to hold on to his property that was used for live baiting.

• Noble avoids jail
• State wanted trainer jailed

A COURT has ruled disgraced greyhound trainer Tom Noble can keep his Queensland property even though it was used for live-baiting.

Brisbane Supreme Court Justice Graeme Crow today dismissed an application by the Crown to seize the 16-hectare Churchable property, north of Gatton, because it was used for illegal activity.

The Supreme Court was this week told Noble, 71, and his wife would have to rely on welfare if the Queensland Government seized the property he used for illegal live- bating.

Noble received a wholly suspended three-year jail term in 2016 for 15 counts of serious animal cruelty, after he admitted using live piglets, rabbits and possums to develop a “bloodlust” in race dogs.

Noble used live piglets, rabbits and possums to develop a “bloodlust” in race dogs at the 16-hectare property between August and October 2014.

Justice Crow said in his judgment today that it would have been “wholly disproportionate” to confiscate the $600,000 home when he only made a total of between $635 and $1270 from live-bait training.

“Mr and Mrs Noble are already in need of medical assistance and further treatment may be required,” he wrote.

“The Churchable property is therefore extremely important to Mr and Mrs Noble, not only as their sole source of current income but importantly as a means of funding any necessary medical treatment.”

Noble is suffering from lymphoma, asbestosis and gastric ulcers, while his wife has a progressive lung disease and chronic depression.

The former trainer said outside court he was relieved with the decision.

“If they had taken it off us we would’ve had nothing,” he said.

He said he had been punished enough.

Tom Noble said he had been punished enough. Picture: File photo/Jodie Richter

His lawyer, Alastair McDougall, yesterday told the court his client and his wife both suffered serious medical issues that would require ongoing treatment. He argued seizure of the property, which was listed for sale shortly after his conviction but is now being used as a rental property, would force the Nobles onto welfare.

Mr McDougall said forfeiture of the property was also a “disproportionate response” to the severity of the crime.

“While on any view of the offence it is serious ... the facts are that the offence itself only carries a maximum seven years,” he said yesterday.

Justice Graeme Crow yesterday labelled it a “shocking example of this type of offence”.

Karen Bradford, for the Crown, said the Nobles had failed to provide adequate information about their financial status, and that it was difficult to determine how much weight to give to Mrs Noble’s interest in the property. She noted that finding comparable cases to this matter was near impossible as almost all seizures under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 were drug- related.