Jamie Kah - Jockey - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Jamie Kah - Jockey - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Jamie Kah  (Read 5097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Sep-17, 05:48 PM Reply #50 »
Kah to fight two-month lying ban in Supreme Court
Jamie Kah was handed an extra two-month ban for misleading stewards on top of her three-month suspension for breaking Covid-19 protocols.
Kah was handed an extra two-month ban for misleading stewards on top of her three-month suspension for breaking Covid-19 protocols.
By Gilbert Gardiner
09:28am • 17 September 2021

Jamie Kah has launched Supreme Court action to dismiss the charge of giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards during a probe into the Mornington Airbnb gathering.

Kah’s lawyers acting on instruction filed the grounds of appeal to commence the legal proceeding after the Victorian Racing Tribunal on Friday suspended the jockey for a further two months.

The penalty means Kah, now serving a three-month ban for the Covid-19 breach on August 25, cannot ride in races until late January.

News Corp Australia has established the trigger for the Supreme Court escalation is not the suspension, as such, but that her integrity is in question.

Kah was prepared to plead guilty to unintentionally misleading the stewards but would not and does not accept that she ever gave “false” evidence or intentionally misled the stewards.


She is also said to be very disappointed with the stewards’ submissions on penalty that she had shown no remorse despite them being well aware of her extreme level of distress.

Kah was experiencing personal issues at the time of the gathering, which led her to ask friend, apprentice jockey Celine Gaudray, to come over as she needed “someone to talk to”.

“Today I have appealed my conviction by the VRT and penalty imposed upon me to the Supreme Court of Victoria,” Kah posted on her social media.

“I have done so because I answered every question asked of me by stewards truthfully and yet I have been found guilty of giving false evidence.

“My reputation, which I have earned by my conduct over my whole life as an honest person, is very important to me.

“I am going to Court to defend my reputation as to honesty. It is too important to myself as a person not to.

“I will not be making any further public comment on the matter. The Courts will decide the issues.”

Racing Victoria Show Cause Hearing

Jamie Kah’s barrister Damian Sheales has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court after the star jockey was banned a further two months.

The charge stemmed from the 25-year-old not naming Mark Zahra when asked by stewards on August 26 “who ended up there”.

Kah interpreted the question as relating to when Victoria Police at about midnight to break up the party.

Kah replied with the names of Ben Melham, Ethan Brown and two other non-licensed attendees as having “ended up” there, the point in time when police arrived.

Only in a third interview on August 30 did Kah, when asked directly about Zahra, confirm he was “briefly” at the property.

Zahra was not at the house when police attended.

News Corp Australia has obtained the six conviction errors — grounds for dismissal — which Sheales filed with the Supreme Court on Friday.

A further five “errors” in reasoning have also been lodged — taking the total number to 11 grounds.

A Supreme Court Judge need only find one warranted the Racing Victoria case will be dismissed.

These include:

■ THE VRT “erred as to a matter of law” by finding the charge proven against Kah, as the particulars of the charge, if proven, did not and could not constitute offence against the Rule.

■ THE VRT failed to afford Kah “procedural fairness” by “entirely recasting” RV’s case after the close of evidence and all submissions.

■ The VRT erred by determining that: one specific answer given by Kah to stewards was “wilfully false”. The failure to answer that truthfully and completely is essentially what is being asserted in the charge. Kah’s guilt was established as a result of the impugned answer alone.

The wording is at odds with submissions heard by the tribunal, where stewards alleged a case by omission, as opposed to Kah’s answers to questions asked by stewards being untrue.

■ The VRT erred in its construction of Rule 232(i) (false and/or misleading evidence) by determining that: any evidence given in an interview that was capable of being determined to be false or misleading was not confined to the statements uttered by an interviewee during the course of the interview. A breach the Rule could be proved by omission or silence.

■ THE VRT erred determining the Rule (or the Rules generally) imposed any obligation of voluntary disclosure upon the plaintiff.

■ ALTERNATIVELY to Ground 5, if Rule 232 (i) imposed any obligation of voluntary disclosure upon the plaintiff (which is denied), the VRT erred as a matter of law in determining that the plaintiff had breached any such obligation of voluntary when being interviewed.

■ THE VRT erred in ordering a two-month suspension to be effective cumulatively upon the three months’ suspension by failing to give any adequate weight to: totality, proportionality, parity, remorse and manner in which Kah conducted her defence.

Under the Rules Of Racing participants are obliged to answer questions put to them by stewards truthfully.

There is no obligation to volunteer information under the rules.

Importantly, the veracity of Kah’s interviews – on August 26, 27 and 30 – has not been doubted by the stewards, only that the she omitted Zahra in a response to the “ended up” question.

Jamie Kah’s ban has been extended to five months.

A transcript of interview buried in the VRT judgment shows Kah also left out apprentice jockey Celine Gaudray’s name when asked “who ended up being there”.

CHAIRMAN: OK. So did you invite the other people to arrive?

KAH: No, that wasn’t my intention. I did message Celine. We’re quite good friends and I just thought I need someone to talk to at the moment and I wasn’t really planning on her staying but I just asked her to come over and the rest of them came over too.

CHAIRMAN: And who ended up being there?

KAH: Ethan Brown and Ben Melham and their friend, (NAME WITHHELD).

CHAIRMAN: Yes. Was there another female there?

KAH: Yeah, there was another girl later on. Look, I’m not really quite sure who she is. I honestly – honest truth, I couldn’t really tell you who she is, and that was not the intention for her to be there”.

In her interview on August 30 Kah said Zahra had been at the gathering “briefly”, when asked directly about the jockey, and strongly denied lying about the fact.

KAH: Like I said, Mark was there briefly early on. He didn’t end up being there – didn’t end up staying or wasn’t there when the police came …

CHAIRMAN: … anything further you wish to tell us?

KAH: No, sir. Look, I’ve been very upfront with you today and, look, honestly, if you’d asked me if Mark was – you know, if he was there at any time early in the night, I would have said that, but I just thought you asked who ended up there, meaning the incident and the reason the police came.

CHAIRMAN: … would you agree that during that part of the interview, it wasn’t mentioned about the police and there were no questions about who was there before the police arrived?

Would you agree with that?

KAH: “Look sir, I just answered the question that you said, “Who ended up being there?” and that’s what I thought my response would be to who ended up there”.

Kah ban extended in latest twist to Airbnb saga

Jamie Kah has been suspended for two months for giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards during an inquiry into the Mornington Airbnb gathering.

The Victorian Racing Tribunal delivered the unanimous decision on Friday morning.

Unlike previous cases involving fellow Airbnb attendees Mark Zahra and Celine Gaudray, Kah, who pleaded not guilty to lying to stewards, has been afforded no discount to the new suspension.

It means Kah, who copped a three-month ban for the Covid-19 breach, will be unable to ride in races until the end of January.

Judge John Bowman confirmed the suspension must be served cumulatively.

The charge stemmed from Kah not naming Mark Zahra as an attendee of the gathering on August 25 when asked “who ended up there”.

In a separate interview on August 30 Kah confirmed Zahra attended when asked directly about the jockey.

Kah’s defence is based on the fact she misinterpreted the generic question “who ended up there” as relating to when Victoria Police broke up the gathering on August 25 following a noise complaint.

It is accepted Zahra only spent a short time at the Tallis Dr address where he had “a couple of drinks” and was not there when local police arrived late at night.

Kah is unable to ride until the end of January. Pictu Racing Photos via Getty Images

In handing down the decision Judge John Bowman said: “When telling stewards who was present you wilfully omitted the name of Mr Zahra.

“You did not give his name until directly confronted by stewards (August 30).

“Your evidence was that, while you knew he had been at the premises, you thought the stewards were inquiring about who had been present at a later time.

“We made it clear this is an excuse which we simply do not accept.”

Judge Bowman said the giving of false or misleading evidence, which led to Zahra not being a known participant until August 28, “could have been a calamity” in the event of a Covid-19 outbreak.

The tribunal took into account the “massive potential losses” Kah’s current three-month ban for the Covid breach has financial and for her career generally.

But as they are separate matters – Covid breach and lying – it played no part in the new two-month ban.

Kah, who pleaded not guilty to lying, must serve the eight weeks, as opposed to part suspended.

“You are fully entitled to plead not guilty and it would be wrong to impose a penalty for your doing so, however, no discounting factor in the type related to pleading guilty shall apply,” Judge Bowman said.

The tribunal heard on Wednesday Kah offered to plead guilty to misleading stewards but not the giving of false evidence, based on her interpretation of “who ended up there” being a point in time.
ENDS

The grounds of the application to the Supreme Court look like the scatter gun approach ...hoping one will hit the target ......VRT reasons for decision do not appear to be publicly available yet.....the only certainty is that the Court's decision won't be decided on comments made on social media......whether friends or foes.

Giddy Up :beer:

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 8866
« 2021-Sep-17, 07:27 PM Reply #51 »
ended...

Stewards may lose due to a poorly worded question. Maybe they need legal training.

Could easily have asked a much clearer question leaving no doubt.

The doubt is what Kah's team may succeed on.

Fours

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Sep-17, 08:03 PM Reply #52 »
Reasons for Decision of the VRT on Wednesday 15th September finding Jamie guilty of the charge of giving false or misleading evidence to stewards  ..............to be followed by the decision imposing a two month penalty .

2. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the above, we say now that we are comfortably satisfied that Mr Zahra was one of the seven people at the gathering; that he was there at least long enough to have had a couple of drinks, if not participate in the barbecue; that you knew that he had been there; and that, when interviewed by the Stewards, you referred to and listed six people as being at the gathering before there was any reference in the interview to the police arriving. Indeed, you did not mention Mr Zahra at any time during the first interview.
Both Ms Sharp, Counsel on behalf of the Stewards, and Mr Sheales, Counsel on your behalf, made detailed and helpful submissions. We shall not set them out in full.   
We prefer those on behalf of the Stewards. We would make the following points.
Firstly, we shall set out in full an early part of the interview of 26 August 2016 which we regard as being as being important in relation to the Particulars of Charge:
“CHAIRMAN: Okay. So did you invite the other people to arrive?
MS KAH: No, that wasn’t my intention. I did message Celine. We’re quite good friends and I just thought I need someone to talk to at the moment and I wasn’t really planning on her staying but I just asked her to come over and the rest of them came over too.
CHAIRMAN: And who ended up being there?
MS KAH: Ethan Brown and Ben Melham and their friend, Rob Cummings.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. Was there another female there?
MS KAH: Yeah, there was another girl later on. Look, I’m not really quite sure who she is. I honestly – honest truth, I couldn’t really tell you who she is, and that was not the intention for her to be there”.
We agree with Ms Sharp that this is a very significant passage that effectively forms the basis of the Particulars of Charge. You were asked a simple question. You answered it to the extent of even mentioning a girl whose name you did not seem to know and who arrived “later on”. Mr Zahra in fact arrived “later on”. You did not give his name to the Stewards. To this point of the interview, there had been no mention of the police, noise, a late night or the like. 
We would repeat that the question, “And who ended up being there?” is a clear enquiry as to who attended at the premises. The failure to answer that truthfully and completely is essentially what is being asserted in the Particulars of Charge. Your later explanation in the third interview makes it clear that you were at all relevant times aware that Mr Zahra had been present at the Airbnb on that night.
When, in the third interview, you did admit that Mr Zahra had attended, you did not claim a memory lapse or the like. Further, it was not something which you volunteered. It was in response to a direct question of the Stewards, prefaced by the words “We’ve now learned that Mark Zahra was at the gathering.”
You did not suggest that this was something which you had previously forgotten when interviewed. The excuse which you proffered was that you thought that the enquiries of the Stewards were as to who was present when the police arrived. We find this to be totally unbelievable. You were aware of the COVID-19 situation and the Protocols. If that is so, you were aware of the crucial importance of identifying all who had been present at the gathering, regardless of the length of their stay.
The defence put forward by Mr Sheales was quite technical in nature and focussed on the wording of the Rule. Without wishing to oversimplify his arguments, his conclusions were that this Tribunal is bound by the common law definitions of false evidence and misleading evidence. He attacked the wording of the Particulars of Charge. Further, he argued that your original answers resulted from a question as to who “ended up” at the gathering. It is argued that you interpreted this as meaning at a later time, such as when the police arrived.
We disagree.
In our opinion, the words “false or misleading” are broad enough to include what could be described as falsity or being misleading by way of omission or silence. In the first interview, you were asked very important questions as to the identification of who had been present. In your answers, you did not name Mr Zahra, although you knew that he had been present. That was a false answer. It was a breach of the Rule.
We are not of the opinion that we need even go that far. The wilfully false answer to the Chairman’s question “And who ended up there?“ is sufficient to establish the breach. The Charge is clear. The Particulars are clear. The breach is clear. 
We do not accept that you were somehow misled by the Chairman’s use of the words “ended up”. When viewed in context, and in the context of a COVID-19 situation, it was clear that the Stewards wanted the names of all persons, and particularly licensed persons, who had been present.  That is understandable. They were dealing with a COVID-19 situation and the Protocols.

In summary, we are comfortably satisfied that the charge has been proven. We shall hear the parties on the question of penalty at a suitable time.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

Giddy Up :beer:

« Last Edit: 2021-Sep-18, 09:09 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Sep-17, 08:12 PM Reply #53 »
Today's VRT decision to impose a two month suspension following their findings on Wednesday.

 DECISION

Ms Jamie Kah, we have found you guilty of a breach of AR 232(i). We have found that you gave evidence at an interview or inquiry that was false or misleading. We would refer to our decision of 15 September 2021. We shall not set out the background facts, which are contained in that decision. Suffice to say that they concern a get together on the night of 25 August 2021 at an Airbnb rented by you at Mornington.
The breach of the Rule with which you have been charged took place on 26 August 2021. When telling Stewards who had been present, you wilfully omitted the name of Mr Mark Zahra. You did not give his name until directly confronted by the Stewards on 30 August 2021. Your evidence was that, whilst you knew that he had been at the house earlier, you thought that the Stewards were enquiring about who had been present at a later time when the police arrived. We have made it clear that this was an excuse which we simply do not accept.
As we said in the cases of Ms Gaudray and Mr Zahra, the giving of false or misleading evidence to the Stewards is understandably a serious offence, even at the best of times. The work of the Stewards is demanding. The arrival of the COVID-19 epidemic and the Protocols increased those demands. Having to endure false or misleading evidence, and the resulting wastage of time, is something that they can ill afford. General deterrence is an important consideration.
Further, given that this offence occurred in the context of COVID-19, this giving of false or misleading evidence could have had disastrous consequences, both for those participating, other members of the industry with whom they came into contact and the general public. Many hours passed between your false or misleading evidence to the Stewards on 26 August 2021 and your ultimate admission on 30 August 2021 that Mr Zahra had been present at the party. Indeed, the greater part of a day (and his riding at jump-outs on 27 August 2021) had passed between Mr Zahra leaving the party and his admission to the Stewards. In short, there could have a calamity.
However, this charge concerns not your breaching AR 232(b), for which you have already been punished, but for giving false or misleading evidence. The relevance of the COVID-19 virus is that it is the context in which this charge arose and the fact that your false evidence delayed the Stewards awareness of Mr Zahra’s attendance at your premises. 
We also take into account the matters put forward by Mr Sheales on your behalf. You have an unblemished record in respect of this or any other serious offence. You are highly successful and have just won the award for riding the most metropolitan winners in the 2020-21 season. As submitted by Mr Sheales, you have created a large amount of positive and widespread interest in racing. Apart from your obviously outstanding ability, the manner in which you have presented yourself has brought a lot of favourable attention to the sport and the industry associated with it.
Mr Sheales also addressed us in relation to the financial impact of your suspension – for example, the missing out on leading rides in the Cox Plate, the Caulfield and Melbourne Cups and the like. Of course, missing those top Spring Carnival rides is the consequence of the penalty imposed by the Stewards for your breach of AR 232 (b) – what could be described as the COVID-19 offence – and is a penalty which you have not challenged.
We appreciate that Mr Sheales was making that submission concerning massive potential losses in the context of the background to this offence. We also appreciate that there is some factual overlapping between the two charges. However, they remain two distinct and separate charges, attracting separate penalties. Similarly, some aspects of what has been submitted by Ms Sharp on behalf of the Stewards might be seen as being more directed towards the charge for which you have already been punished.
The events at the Airbnb provide the setting or context in which this charge arose. The penalty which we impose will not be in respect of that background and the breach of AR 232(b). It will be for the breach of AR 232(i), a separate and serious offence.
Ms Sharp submitted that the penalty should be one of two months suspension, with no part of that period in turn suspended. She has drawn our attention to the penalties imposed in some previous cases involving jockeys and a breach of this Rule.
Mr Ben Melham was disqualified for a period of two months in December 2020. His case did not involve COVID-19. He had pleaded guilty.
Mr Ben Thompson pleaded guilty to a breach of this Rule on 14 July 2021. His case did not involve COVID-19. He was suspended for two months.   
In each of those cases, the penalty for the breach of AR 232(i) was not concurrent with the other charge or charges involved. It was cumulative.
The case of Mr Mitch Aitken (4 November 2020) was against a background of the COVID-19 Protocols. He pleaded guilty to a breach of AR 232(i). He was suspended for eight weeks. That was cumulative upon other penalties involved. However, the total period of suspension for all three charges to which he pleaded was in turn partially suspended. There were particular circumstances and problems in his background for which he was receiving professional assistance. None such has been put before us in your case and we repeat that Mr. Aitken, like Mr Melham and Mr Thompson, was pleading guilty.
Of course, you are fully entitled to plead not guilty, and it would be wrong to increase a penalty for your so doing. However, no discounting factor of the type related to a plea of guilty shall be applied. In arriving at an appropriate penalty, we have taken into account the principle of totality, and that, due to the factual circumstances, there is some overlay.
The bottom line is that we are of the opinion that a period of two months suspension should be imposed for this charge pursuant to AR 232(i). It is cumulative in its entirety upon the period of three months suspension imposed by the Stewards in relation to the breach of AR 232 (b). Thus, the total period of suspension is five months.


Mark Howard
Registrar, Victorian Racing Tribunal

ENDS

There are two options one is to appeal to VCAT on the question of penalty ..........the other is the one taken by Damian Sheales to apply to the Supreme Court raising the question of LAW ..be interesting to see how it turns out .


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 6543
« 2021-Sep-20, 10:32 PM Reply #54 »
Seems Racing NSW and Racing Victoria have a few things in common. Racing NSW imposed a 3 month suspension for a gathering too.

I do wonder whether those who criticised Racing Victoria for being heavy handed would take umbrage now at Racing NSW? The silence could be deafening due to the Peter V’Landys influence. However I am confused at the suspension of the jockeys but Carmody and Thompson received fines and they visited tracks too outside the lockdown LGAs.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/more-jockeys-banned-for-illegal-gathering-in-canberra-20210903

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 1968
« 2021-Sep-21, 08:55 AM Reply #55 »
RNSW seem to have no problem being very heavy handed on dishing out punishment to it's "lesser name"

It gives it "stars" very different treatment....Why?.... they want them present at their big race days because there is a buck in it!

RVL's  decision with Jamie Kah especially, would come at huge cost to them.....she brings the sort of world headlines the industry craves.
The 1k fine for J Mac for absolutely flogging a horse along with light  penalties for "star" jockeys  killing horses and injuring other jockeys just prove that.

Poison Pen's Meramist sadist got fined $3.7k for hitting a horse with a piece of poly pipe at an abattoir.....nearly 4 times J Mac's punishment....but he was on a racecourse. :what:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Oct-01, 05:55 PM Reply #56 »
S ECI 2021 03412Jamie Kah v. Racing Victoria Limited (ACN 096 917 930) & Ors. Redcrest eFiling17-Sep-2021Open

Could be some time before the case climbs up the list to set a date for hearing there are quite a few files ahead of this one.


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Oct-28, 12:57 PM Reply #57 »
Kah waits on Supreme Court ruling in bid to clear name

Jamie Kah would be free to resume riding from November 26 if successful in her Supreme Court appeal.
By Gilbert Gardiner
12:23pm • 28 October 2021
Banned jockey Jamie Kah’s quest to clear her name — and beat a further two-month suspension — for giving Racing Victoria stewards false and/or misleading evidence hangs in the balance.

Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Niall QC on Thursday adjourned the matter for consideration, after hearing “concise but helpful submissions” made on behalf of Kah and RV stewards.

“The proceeding raises some issues of both importance and difficulty, so I propose to consider my decision,” Justice Niall QC said.

“I‘m conscious the suspension that was imposed by the tribunal (ends) on the 25th of November and I’ll do my best to ensure that the judgment of the court is delivered as expeditiously as possible.”


Kah received a three-month ban for her part in the Mornington Airbnb gathering back in late August.

She would go on to cop a further eight-week sanction, to be served cumulatively, for the additional charge of giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards.

The star jockey is fighting only the secondary charge and suspension, adamant her answers to all questions asked by stewards about the August 25 gathering were truthful.

It is a position shared by stewards.

However, the false and/or misleading charge stems from Kah’s omission to name fellow jockey Mark Zahra as an attendee of the gathering when asked by stewards “who ended up there”.


Jamie Kah was banned an extra two months for giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards.

Kah has long argued her answer, naming jockeys Ben Melham and Ethan Brown, along with two others (unlicensed persons), was linked to who was at the Airbnb when police attended the property.

In a third interview, when asked directly about Zahra, Kah confirmed he was at the gathering for a short time early on.

Kah’s barrister Damian Sheales on Thursday in submissions maintained the Victorian Racing Tribunal erred finding the star jockey guilty based on the question asked.

“If the questioner was interested in licensed persons he (chairman of stewards) should’ve asked about them,” Sheales said.

“The reality is … they asked the questions they chose to ask, they don’t suggest any (of her) answers are untrue, and now they want to convict her for answers not given to questions not asked.”

Barrister Raelene Sharp, acting for stewards, said Kah was trying to “explain away a decision she made not to name Mr Zahra” by linking the “who ended up being there” question to when police attended.

Should Kah be unsuccessful in her appeal the two-month ban will see her rubbed out until late January.

Alternatively, Kah would be free to resume race riding from November 26.

Read all news by
Gilbert Gardiner
ENDS

The same argument was put to the VRT and was rejected the learned Judge will either come to the same conclusion or point out where the VRT was in error ..what's likely I have no idea
Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2021-Oct-28, 01:08 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Nov-17, 07:36 PM Reply #58 »
Kah ‘can’t wait’ to return after Supreme Court win

By Gilbert Gardiner
10:44am • 16 November 2021

Star jockey Jamie Kah cannot wait to get back to the races after her Supreme Court appeal of a two-month ban for giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards was successful.

Kah’s original three month ban for a Covid-19 breach in late August – hosting a gathering at an Airbnb rental in Mornington – will expire at midnight November 25.

“I am obviously very happy with the outcome,” Kah said in a statement shortly after the Supreme Court decision.
“It’s now time to move forward.

“I can’t wait to get back to what I love, riding and being part of our amazing industry.

“Thanks to everyone who has said kind words to me or provided moral support over the last three months, it has been a real comfort through very tough times.
“As I said last time, I won’t be making any further public comment. See you at the races!!”

Kah, 25, who accepted her sanction for the gathering itself, launched the Supreme Court challenge in October after being found guilty and penalised for lying to stewards.

Supreme Court Justice Niall QC set aside the two-month penalty but stopped short of dismissing the charge completely.

Justice Niall upheld multiple grounds of appeal, including Kah being “denied” procedural fairness.

He also said the Victorian Racing Tribunal’s decision “did not reflect the charge as made by the stewards”.

“The position is, counsel, I propose to set aside the determination of penalty,” Justice Niall said.

“Can I indicate for the benefit of counsel that the originating motion seeks, by way of relief, an order from the court dismissing the charge, although I’m prepared to hear further argument on it, I’m not minded to dismiss the charge.

“It’s no role of the court of course, in judicial reviews, to determine the merits of the charge.”

Kah could be the first of the five jockeys implicated in the gathering to return to the racing arena.

Fellow jockeys and gathering attendees Celine Gaudray, Ethan Brown, Mark Zahra and Ben Melham will be eligible to resume in coming weeks and months following the expiration of their respective bans.

Brown, Zahra and Melham withdrew appeals of three-month suspensions and did not challenge the “false/misleading” charge, which attracted additional bans, ranging from two to eight weeks respectively.

Gaudray, who did not appeal the original three-month ban, will serve two weeks for the lying to stewards.
 
Jamie Kah’s original ban for a Covid-19 breach ends on November 25.

While Kah accepted her part in the Mornington Covid-19 breach at the earliest opportunity, the 25-year-old has remained adamant she never lied to stewards.

Kah alleged she was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal found her guilty of giving false and/or misleading evidence despite never being asked directly to name all gathering attendees.

The stewards case hinged on Kah not naming Zahra when the question “who ended up being there?” was asked the morning after the August 25 gathering.

Kah interpreted the question to when police arrived at the property to investigate a noise complaint.

An extract of the stewards’ interview was included in the Supreme Court decision document.

STEWARD: And who ended up being there?

KAH: Ethan Brown and Ben Melham and their friend, Rob Cummings.

STEWARD: Yes. Was there another female there?

KAH: Yeah, there was another girl later on. Look, I’m not really quite sure who she is. I honestly – honest truth, I couldn’t really tell you who she is, and that was not the intention for her to be there.
 
Following the exchange the inquiry shifted to Kah’s movements after the races.

Justice Niall highlighted the stewards’ investigatory failure.

“The failure of the stewards to pinpoint a false answer arose in this case because the questions asked by the stewards lacked specificity,” Justice Niall said.

“The stewards may well have assumed that the plaintiff had provided a full list of the persons who were present at any time that night.

“However, they did not ask the plaintiff in a clear and unequivocal way to give that information.

“It is also notable that in answer to the question that the Tribunal ultimately focused on, the plaintiff did not refer to Ms Gaudray nor the unnamed female person she identified in answer to the next question.

“It could hardly be said that in failing to refer to those two people the plaintiff was giving a deliberately false answer to the question she was asked.

“The fact that the questions lacked a degree of specificity and did not expressly ask the plaintiff to list all of the people who were present on the night, did not of itself mean that the plaintiff’s evidence could not be false or misleading.”

Read all news by
Gilbert Gardiner

ENDS

I don't imagine judge Bowman will be happy with the implied criticism ....... it shows how two eminently qualified judges consider the same issue but come up with different conclusions...that's how the law sometimes works .


Giddy Up :no1:



Offline timw

  • Group3
  • User 2166
  • Posts: 789
« 2021-Nov-18, 11:53 AM Reply #59 »
While careers can and do turn on what someone does under the influence of alcohol and drugs I am fascinated by peoples ability to accurately remember events. 

I accept that contributors to this site have above average intelligence but we probably know someone who has said shortly after an exam they have forgotten almost everything they studied.  Yet we regularly see/read about witnesses who give faultless minute by minute accounts of events from years ago.  Conversely there are those that dont remember any details and the latter is generally disbelieved in media commentary. Putting aside coaching by legal advisors and/or survival instincts while both could be the telling the truth I suspect that in most cases the accuracy of recollection sits somewhere between the two extremes. In my case it would generally be towards the dont remember end even if it happened 10 minutes ago. 

So I have a chuckle in TV crime show land when Mr Plod enters a scene where alcohol was consumed in copious quantities expecting a useful recollection of events.  Ditto jockeys seemingly intent on having a very good time.   

Cheers

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Nov-19, 08:10 PM Reply #60 »
The decision with reasons for setting aside the penalty can be found in the link below.

http://www10.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC//2021/753.html


Giddy Up :no1:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap