Racing Appeal Board Decisions - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Racing Appeal Board Decisions - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Racing Appeal Board Decisions  (Read 34030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
O.P. « 2014-Jan-02, 11:50 AM »
Anyone searching for Racing Appeal Board Decisions needs a bit of luck to find it as it's a Government website and while RQ does have a link it's in an obscure section which you might stumble upon so it might be of interest to have a separate thread for ease of access.

One interesting appeal is on dual license holder G Courtney who was found with drugs in his system and DQ'd for 6 months...losing his track riders license and his jockey managers one.

 http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/disciplinary-board-appeal-decisions.html

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Feb-28, 08:18 AM Reply #1 »
Latest appeal board headed by Judge Carter upheld Maija Vance's appeal against suspension on the basis there was a reasonable doubt ...that's two down to the stewards Michael McKenzie the previous one.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-02-05-maija-vance.pdf

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-12, 08:43 AM Reply #2 »
Most of us are familiar with the term sub judice which in effect means a matter is before the courts or is under judicial consideration....which led me to Google the various descriptions under that heading ........what I found most interesting is the contribution 2009 by a Law firm in the UK siting various circumstances where it is an offence under English law to breach the rule.

While the Appeal Board established to hear racing appeals is not a court of law it is charged with determining matters brought before it according to law so effectively it has a similar function......the question is are matters brought before it considered to be sub judice....if so those of us who commented on the pending appeal by Damian Browne might find ourselves subject to some adverse findings as the Hon Margaret White pointed out in her comments about possible contempt charges due to certain comments being made on the forum during the currency of the racing inquiry drawn to her attention by Mr Wilson QC representing the former QRL directors and staff. :whistle:


The sub judice rule and contempt of court
This guide is based on UK law and was written in January 2009. The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub...


This guide is based on UK law and was written in January 2009.

The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.

Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.

There are two forms of contempt of court:

1.statutory contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which criminalises the publication of material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced; and
2.common law contempt, which targets any other action which is intended to interfere with the administration of justice, including interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings.
Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings. Accordingly, any of the following activities could be considered to be contempt:

obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
filming or recording within court buildings;
making payments to witnesses;
publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
reporting on the defendant's previous convictions;
mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.
However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.

Liability and defence
Statutory contempt of court: Liability for statutory contempt of court is strict. This means that the publisher cannot escape liability by arguing that he had no intention of prejudicing on-going legal proceedings or that he did not know that the material was sub judice. The degree of prejudice which results from the publication is also irrelevant; it is sufficient that there was a risk that the proceedings would be substantially prejudiced.

However, a limited number of defences to statutory contempt are available to a publisher, namely that the material comprised a fair and accurate contemporary report or a discussion of public affairs, and, more significantly, that publication of the potentially prejudicial material was made innocently. This last defence applies only where the publisher did not know and had no reason to suspect that the proceedings which featured in the material were active.

Common law contempt of court: Intention is necessary to commit common law contempt. The material must have been published with the design to prejudice criminal proceedings that are pending or imminent, a definition which introduces a fine line between pressing for prosecution, which is acceptable, and influencing public perception of an individual who is about to be prosecuted, which is forbidden. There is no defence for publication in the public interest, but a court would need to consider the requirements of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the need for proportionality in view of any legitimate purpose which the publication may serve.

Significance of knowledge of content
The key to prosecution for either form of contempt of court clearly lies with the publisher's knowledge of published material. In the case of statutory contempt, the focus is on awareness of the content of the material published or the status of proceedings. With common law contempt, intention to prejudice is key; honest mistake would be a complete defence to any prosecution.

The importance of knowledge was reinforced when a High Court ruling, issued to protect the identities of the killers of James Bulger, a two year old boy who was abducted and murdered in 1993 by two eleven year old boys, was amended following a challenge by a UK ISP. The revised prohibition on publication of information regarding the killers' new identities confirmed that an ISP would not be in breach unless it knew that its service contained or could contain prohibited material or provided or could provide access to such material. Lack of knowledge of the nature of the material is also a prerequisite to those who hosted or cached the material benefiting from the defences available under the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. These defences are discussed further below.

In respect of statutory contempt, a publisher accused of breaching the sub judice rule can argue that he was not aware of the content of the material published or that the proceedings were active. However, to succeed, the publisher must show that he took all reasonable care to confirm the status of the material.

The publisher's task is straightforward, if mundane, where he is actively involved in sourcing and compiling the material. But where the content is being provided by external sources, the publisher's ability to monitor the material becomes much more difficult, although his legal responsibilities remain as stringent.

Liability for user-generated content and available defences
In the traditional media, publishers with only a tenuous link to the editorial process, such as printers and newsagents, sometimes use lawyers' opinions for assurance that the material which is being provided to them for printing or distribution does not contain matters sub judice and that the lawyer has no reason to suspect that the materials are likely to contain such matters. But this approach obviously cannot work in the case of user-generated media where the publisher will be unable to obtain guarantees of any value from the content provider.

The requirement for intention to prosecute under common law contempt means that prosecution, particularly for user-generated content published in breach of any restriction, is more likely to be based on statutory contempt. Its strict liability means that publishers (and any other entity involved in the chain of publication and distribution of the material, from editor to salesperson) can theoretically be held liable for any user-generated content on their webpage which contains material in relation to matters sub judice. Liability may also extend to publishers who link another, foreign, site, the content of which would be in contempt of court if published in the UK.

In practice, use can be made of the 'innocent distribution' defence, i.e. the publisher was not aware that the material related to matters sub judice. Obviously, this defence is no longer applicable once the publisher is notified that publication of the material would be contemptuous. Thus publishers should take action to remove any material which they have been informed is in breach of any restriction on publication.

Speedy removal of user-generated content material which has been identified since publication as sub judice should also entitle the publisher to the benefit of a statutory defence under the E-Commerce Regulations. The E-Commerce Regulations state that a host cannot be criminally sanctioned or liable for civil damages if it was unaware that the material is unlawful and, on becoming aware, it acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information. Similar defences are available for entities that cache information or act as 'mere conduits'.

What action should be taken?
Publishers should not assume that users will respect court-imposed restrictions on content.

In the case of Baby P, a 17 month old boy who died in 2007 as a result of injuries sustained from repeated abuse, the names of the child, his mother and boyfriend were published on numerous blogs and social networking sites by users who were either choosing to deliberately breach reporting restrictions or were unaware of the sub judice rule. Site moderators were kept occupied removing references to the individuals' identities which were posted by users as well as attempting to ascertain whether the details had been indexed or cached before they were removed from the forum.

In respect of user-generated content, most sites follow the 'notice and take-down' approach whereby publishers remove potentially-unlawful content quickly upon receiving notification.

Some sites also use automated monitoring. In 2006, the New York Times used technology to block British visitors to its website so that it could report on a terrorism trial. The material used in the report was believed to be sub judice in Britain. However, advice should always be sought in individual cases to confirm that any such automated measures are appropriate.

What is considered to be 'taking reasonable care' will change as more sophisticated monitoring technologies become available. Publishers should periodically review their procedures to ensure that they will still be seen to be sufficiently rigorous and that their response to already published material, whether removing it or disabling access, is sufficiently prompt.

« Last Edit: 2014-Mar-12, 08:45 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-19, 05:46 PM Reply #3 »
The Mackay case involving a positive swab $8000 fine on the trainer who has previous convictions decision to dismiss his appeal.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-03-11-darren-symons.pdf

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-24, 06:10 PM Reply #4 »
« Last Edit: 2014-Mar-24, 06:20 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Lert

  • Group 2
  • User 1485
  • Posts: 3720
« 2014-Mar-24, 07:27 PM Reply #5 »
I think it is time for "Bobby the Fixer" to consider other career opportunities.
Preferably something that does not require any moral or ethical compass or any concern for the safety of others.

Offline Cluden

  • Class2
  • User 2319
  • Posts: 26
« 2014-Mar-25, 07:31 AM Reply #6 »
Bobby Elissa is an accident waiting to happen,in more ways than one. The riding ranks would be a lot safer
without him, just ask any jockey who rides against him. 

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-25, 08:35 AM Reply #7 »
Bobby does have a history of getting hisself into trouble but I think he is a very good rider maybe he is inclined to take risks and he should take stock and do his best to keep a  straight course  from here on in ........on his appeal there was no head on camera view to establish what happened ..the Appeal tribunal relied on the evidence of the steward on the spot who did have a front view and based on their acceptance of that  Bobby's appeal was dismissed.

Now in the Damian Browne case there was no doubt there was a run which he could have taken and the stewards quite correctly charged him under the relevant rule and like Bobby he exercised his right to appeal but the appeal tribunal opted to give him the benefit of the doubt dismissing the stewards observations and substituting their own......it could quite easily have gone the other way.

Both decisions by the same members and heard and determined the same day......the difference was Bobby elected to represent hisself...whereas Damian very astutely engaged a Sydney solicitor with knowledge and experience in these matters...it cost him more but his record is intact. :beer: 
« Last Edit: 2014-Mar-25, 08:38 AM by Arsenal »

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2691
« 2014-Mar-25, 09:23 AM Reply #8 »
Wise old jungle saying: 'Anyone who represents himself, has a fool for a client'

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-26, 08:03 AM Reply #9 »
Terry Butts one of the few to comment on the effect the Damian Browne appeal is likely to have on the future writes in the NQ Register.......an opinion which seems to me to be more than a little contradictory........no argument about the headline .......but the conclusions don't make sense. :o

DAMIEN BROWNE APPEAL DECISION HAS OPENED THE FLOOD-GATES FOR JOCKEYS

AND on the subject of inquiries, senior jockey Andrew Spinks was telling someone at a recent Townsville meeting that he copped a month for riding an ill-judged   race at the Gold Coast last year.

He was in a discussion at Cluden about the Damien Browne episode that saw that jockey walk free last week amid much speculation.

“I didn’t like my suspension – but I copped it. It was a bad ride,” said Spinks.

Browne also admitted his was a bad ride. And stewards rightly penalised him. Heathcote, the trainer, threatened to relocate to Sydney because his stable jockey got time.

Has he gone yet?

The appeal, or importantly, the end result was no surprise to anyone.

Browne was long odds-on to beat the wrap.

In the end it was a case of the stewards doing their job in the room – and the jockey not doing his job on the track.

That simple!

If a jockey, particularly of Browne’s calibre, admits it was a bad ride surely that should be enough. There was no need for anyone else to get involved – no-one.

Didn’t Glyn Schofield do time recently for what was deemed by stewards as an ill-judged ride?




 

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5994
« 2014-Mar-26, 08:33 AM Reply #10 »
Arsenal,

If a builder does a bad job on your house, and admits it, you can sue him for compensation...

What about losing punters ( let alone owners ) suing jocks for a badly done job? :chin:

Fours

Offline Lert

  • Group 2
  • User 1485
  • Posts: 3720
« 2014-Mar-26, 10:28 AM Reply #11 »
Arsenal,

If a builder does a bad job on your house, and admits it, you can sue him for compensation...

What about losing punters ( let alone owners ) suing jocks for a badly done job? :chin:

Fours
I can guarantee you we would have seen that already had "The Fixer" had 2 Bob to rub together.
No point suing the bastard when he hasn't got the reddies to pay your costs, let alone the damages.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-26, 06:31 PM Reply #12 »
An interesting question ...the right to sue for  damages....I expect there would be a right to sue in certain circumstances ...say in the case of a jockey convicted of preventing a horse from running on its merits...but it would  need to be a class action as the costs would in most cases be beyond the means of ordinary punters....and the perp probably wouldn't have the funds to settle if the plaintiff succeeded. :o

There is nothing to stop the Crown from instituting proceedings against parties convicted under the racing rules for various offences if they are deemed to be criminal conduct ...serving time in chokey would be a significant deterrent.....the Fine Cotton case comes to mind...and I remember an earlier case in Victoria with a horse  Regal Vista and Thundering Legion is another which I vaguely recall which made headlines in the distant past....I don't know of any punters taking action apart from one guy who took on the Casino claiming they enticed him into losing.....no surprise he didn't have a leg to stand on ..its called gambling. :shutup:

As for suing a builder or any tradesman for that matter it would depend on the value of the claim and the most likely avenue for redress would be QCAT. :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Mar-27, 06:58 PM Reply #13 »
What a coincidence there's criminal charges being brought against NSW trainer Cody Morgan in the Prussian Magic affair. :o

Police pursue Morgan charges

By Adrian Dunn

TVN

Thursday, March 27, 2014 - 2:06 PM


Racing Network
 

NSW police plan to pursue criminal charges against Cody Morgan in what shapes as a landmark case for licensed persons in the racing industry.

Tamworth Court heard that the Director Of Public Prosecution drop one charge and amend others against Morgan, stemming back to the Gunnedah Cup last May proceed.

Morgan, along with another person, was arrested by detective from Strike Force Trentbridge, comprising detectives from the Firearms and Organised Crime Squad’s Casino and Racing investigative unit as they were floating **H*Prussian Secret **to Gunnedah.

It was initially alleged that Morgan administered Prussian Magic with a drench, deemed to be a performance enhancing substance.

Morgan’s legal representative Paul O’Sullivan said a Committal Trial hearing date of May 16 had been set at the Tamworth Court.

O’Sullivan said police, with their amended charges, are now moving away from suggestions that Morgan had administered something illegal, but that he had alleged breached a Rule of Racing that may have affected the betting outcome of a race.

He said the “ramifications” of the case were huge for all trainers/jockeys who may face TCO2 charges or not taking all reasonable or permissible measures to obtain the best possible place.

“What is alleged and what faces Cody is that he breached a Rule that prohibits a drenching of any nature within 24 hours of a race-day,” O’Sullivan said

Morgan has not entered a plea and has not trained a horse since the day he was arrested.

Racing NSW stewards have opened an inquiry into the incident, but it has been adjourned pending the outcome of the court proceedings.
 

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Apr-14, 09:58 PM Reply #14 »
This is another reversal for the stewards in the case of apprentice Ruby Ride charged and found guilty of using profane language after an exchange with chief steward Martin Knibbs

Ride was fined $500 for allegedly telling Knibbs to "Fyck off" a charge which she denied.

The appeal board upheld the appeal on the basis that Mr Knibbs was the only witness against the jockey and after giving his evidence he continued with the other stewards to adjudicate upon the matter...which the board found was inappropriate. :o

In defence of his position Knibbs stated his participation was no different to a steward dealing with what he saw in a careless riding charge.

It appears to me that Ride was lucky to escape on what is a legal technicality......although she denied using the words complained of ...it's unlikely that even if Knibbs withdrew and left the decision to the other stewards ...they would have arrived at a different conclusion. :whistle:


http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-03-26-ruby-ride.pdf

Offline el zoro

  • Group 1
  • User 367
  • Posts: 9310
« 2014-Apr-15, 02:37 PM Reply #15 »
The whole reason to have an Appeals Board is to take the matter out of Stewards jurisdiction & possible bias/corruption. Racing folk are EXTREMELY thin skinned & overly emotional when it comes to Industry matters.     

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Apr-27, 11:08 AM Reply #16 »
Surprise that Brooke Richardson thought she had a chance of getting a reduction in penalty for the shocker she put in on Raeburn represented by D O'Keefe presumeably the same DO'K who represents jockeys plus some professional evidence called in support ......all to no avail stewards decision upheld.....about time they had a win but this was almost a walkover. :shutup:

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-04-17-brooke-richardson.pdf

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Jul-07, 08:27 PM Reply #17 »
Lease dispute over the gelding of a horse..........the  trainer charged and fined $500 appeal upheld on the basis that the charge could not be sustained.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-05-27-garnett-taylor.pdf

That makes better sense.Giddyup :beer:
« Last Edit: 2014-Jul-08, 10:10 AM by Arsenal »

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2691
« 2014-Jul-07, 08:56 PM Reply #18 »
The only law that I know anything about is the 'law of gravity' but I see justice having been done   emthup

Offline specialweek

  • Group 1
  • User 3
  • Posts: 10043
« 2014-Jul-07, 09:01 PM Reply #19 »
Lease dispute over the gelding of a horse trainer charged and fined $500 appeal upheld on the basis that the charge could not be sustained.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-05-27-garnett-taylor.pdf

Which trainer was gelded?

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10481
« 2014-Jul-07, 09:02 PM Reply #20 »
Which trainer was gelded?

mine today     :lol:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Jul-20, 07:00 PM Reply #21 »
This is an interesting case Ronald Jackson 76yo refused an Open Licence to train on account of previous conviction for sexual offence although licensed as a stablehand after his previous trainers licence was withdrawn ..appeal Board upheld his appeal but put conditions that he is not to employ females under 18 years of age.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/thoroughbred/2014-07-17-ronald-jackson.pdf

Annexure A the reasons the control body relied on to refuse the application is not attached. :whistle:

"Fifthly, there are other facts and circumstances before us which are relevant and personal to the applicant. He is supported by apparently reputable citizens. One of the referees, Ms Burnett, was present at the appeal. She has known the applicant since 2006 and is aware of his background. She has worked for him in the past and will accept employment with him again if he is licensed. She is aged 60 years. The age of the appellant is likewise relevant. He is almost 76 years of age, which will necessarily limit any proposed training career. His present intention is to train only one horse."

I reckon his age will likely limit his sexual activity as well. Giddyup.  :lol:
« Last Edit: 2014-Jul-20, 07:05 PM by Arsenal »

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5994
« 2014-Jul-21, 12:33 AM Reply #22 »
Hmmm,

I knew one could tell if QLD males have been gelded or not but horses too?

Fours

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15791
« 2014-Dec-05, 04:22 PM Reply #23 »
Another black eye for stewards trying to uphold integrity in the harness racing industry......upholding an appeal by a trainer DQ'd over backing his trotters to lose did that three times and copped a year for each then two years for bringing the industry into disrepute concurrent plus another two years for intimidating stewards....not a lot of financial gain but the principle is important.....hard to imagine that he was trying when he bet against them. :o


http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/racing/appeal-board-decisions/harness/2014-11-07-justin-abbott.pdf

It's a wonder they didn't give him a slap on the back for knowing when to bet against the horse when it lost but he and his mates knew to  back it to win next time ...he wouldn't be silly enough to try when he bet against it would he........and the board kind of thought it not too serious as less than $1000 involved. :rolleyes:

Would be glad to see RQ appeal to a higher court. Giddy Up. :thumbsup:

Harness racing has been well ahead of their thorough bred cousins giving video replays way back so I looked up this horses two runs....... in the first on 10/3/14 where the trainer laid him to lose he drew 1 but showed no speed and settled third on the fence despite having the opportunity to get off and run he elected to stay where he was and finished mid field never threatened the connections confidence in laying him....... started $1.80 favourite ...next week 17/3/14 at the same track but shorter distance  he drew the outside 6 showed blistering speed to lead and never in danger started $2.40 fav.....and the trainer and his mates collected.
« Last Edit: 2014-Dec-05, 05:26 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12385
« 2014-Dec-06, 06:42 PM Reply #24 »
Can't say I agree or disagree Porky .... because simply I've got no idea what you're talking about  :shrug:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap