- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
conundrum,
perhaps this extract from a criminal case might help explain the kinds of thoughts likely on the minds of the others at the disciplinary tribunal when faced with harry choosing to represent himself :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In many legal systems parties are obliged to be represented by professional lawyers. That is not the British tradition, which has permitted individuals to represent themselves in both civil and criminal proceedings….
…. there are those who, for a variety of reasons, value the right to represent themselves and would resent what they would see as an infringement of their customary rights. To those who hold this view it matters little that professional representation is provided by the state without cost to the defendant……
…When defendants represent themselves in criminal trials problems regularly arise.
Such defendants lack that knowledge of procedure, evidence and substantive law; that appreciation of relevance; that ability to examine and cross-examine witnesses and present facts in an orderly and disciplined way; and that detachment which should form part of the equipment of the professional lawyer……
The trial judge’s duty is to ensure to the utmost of his ability that the defendant, even if unrepresented, or perhaps particularly if unrepresented, has a fair trial…..
….. it will generally be desirable that the trial judge should ask such questions as he sees fit, to test the accuracy and reliability and the possibility of collusion between the prosecution witnesses.
Without either descending into the arena on behalf of the defence or, generally speaking, putting any sort of positive case on behalf of the defence, this is a difficult tight-rope for the trial judge to walk.
However, he must do his best according to the circumstances of the particular case.
It is also open to the judge in an appropriate case to ask a defendant whether there are matters which he wishes to have put to a witness. However, it would be for the judge to decide whether and how to put questions in relation to those matters.
In the present case, the judge, in the course of submissions before the trial, correctly characterised himself as a transmission channel rather than a defence advocate so far as the questioning of witnesses was concerned.
If a judge follows these necessarily general precepts, this Court will be very slow to interfere.
It should of course also be borne in mind that there is a heavy duty on prosecuting counsel, which particularly arises where a defendant is unrepresented, to be scrupulously careful in the way in which the case is presented, so that no unfair prejudice against the defendant can arise from the manner in which the trial is conducted…..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s … 060598.htm
whether or not they got the balance right is something one would need full details to judge, but they would have been trying to put on record that they did all they could to show they did not treat harry like a fish in a barrel to be shot at, even though that may have been the position they may have felt others would think they were faced with….
…and a prosecutor might well be criticised for not putting mitigation to the tribunal on behalf of the defendant where it was evident the defendant was not for some reason doing so effectively for himself.
defendants defend to get off at all costs, but prosecutors don’t prosecute in the mirror image to win at all costs – they are there to push for justice rather than victory.
best regards
wit
Sorry Paul, it seems to be you who is ignoring the facts. Where did I state that the Panel was not independent?
KSincere apologies Ken – my fault for speed reading your post.
I shouldn’t reply to a post so close to a race going off
Just noticed that Denman is still trading at about 16-18 for the National.
If Findlay will no longer be a joint-owner, wouldn’t that make it a lot less likely that Denman will run in the Grand National?
Can Harry still back Horses?
Is the warning off just Horse Racing and not the punting side?
For the purposes of registering with the authorities the horses aren’t owned by Findlay they are in the names of other people but at a rough guess it’s still HF who’s telling them where to run (by proxy since he’s not allowed to associate with license holders I believe).
The warning off is for a fixed period Gerald and that will have expired by the time the Grand National comes around so he’s just as likely to run in the race as before the ban (unless HF pulls out of racing in the UK totally and buys out Paul Barber or they move the horse to Ireland and target him at Punchestown instead or move him to France and aim him for the Grand Steeplechase).
Wallace – as I understand it Harry isn’t allowed on licensed premises (racecourses, training yards, gallops etc.) but the BHA have no authority to ban him from betting or using Betfair so in effect now he’s been warned off he can lay whatever he wants to without fear of any reprisals from the powers that be, who if they believe he’s been talking to license holders would need to prove this.
Greg Woods take on it – Guardian:
Harry Findlay’s appeal may open up cracks in BHA’s betting rules
The owner’s six-month ban for laying one of his horses highlights inconsistency in the punishments meted out by racing’s rulers
Harry Findlay…..is still waiting to hear when his appeal against a six-month ban for laying a horse he owns will be heard. Photograph: Alan Crowhurst/PA
No date has yet been set for Harry Findlay’s appeal against a six-month ban from racing, imposed by the British Horseracing Authority’s disciplinary panel this month for laying one of his horses, Gullible Gordon, on two separate occasions but it could well be a date to note, even if there is a clash with next week’s July meeting at Newmarket, as the action in London might be as intriguing as anything in Suffolk.
This is a purely personal view but there is a good deal about this case that does not quite add up. The severity of Findlay’s ban is the most obvious thing since the panel’s own account of the proceedings seems to agree with Findlay’s suggestion at the hearing that "the people charging me don’t want me to be charged". Indeed they felt that the BHA had gone out of its way to nudge them in the direction of a fine rather than a suspension.
But, as the BHA frequently reminds us, the panel is independent and took the view that, even though Findlay was a substantial net backer of Gullible Gordon on both occasions – one of which he himself drew to the investigators’ attention – it could justify a six-month ban.
There is a difference, though, between independent and out of control. Here it is difficult to see the join, not least when set against other penalties in significant cases over the last couple of years.
Nicky Henderson, for instance, got only three months for having a horse injected with a banned substance on the day of a race and Steve Goodwin was fined only when the panel accepted his explanation that it was his wife, rather than Goodwin himself, who had been laying horses in the ownership of his racing club from a computer in his office. Goodwin — or rather, his wife — was not a net backer, either. These were lay bets, pure and simple. Then, of course, there was Fergal Lynch and his 12-month suspension for deliberately stopping horses, something that most punters would expect to lead to a life ban.
To gain the respect of those it regulates it needs rules and penalties to be applied with some consistency. These examples alone suggest that this is not the case here.
In today’s complex betting market there are certainly ways that inside information — such as how a horse will be ridden — can be exploited to boost returns or minimise risk, while remaining a net backer. This is one of several reasons why the ban on owners laying their horses is there in the first place. But the rules need to reflect that complexity, too, and since every bet on Betfair is timed to the second, it should not be impossible to distinguish between someone who is cynically laying his horses in the style of Miles Rodgers and a situation where someone is still a backer to the tune of many thousands of pounds.
If every riding offence was deemed reckless and punished with a significant ban, the weighing room would be empty. Instead the rules acknowledge that there is a wide spectrum of offences and punishment is in proportion to the crime.
The problem in this case, of course, is that the panel is using the rules as they are, not as they should be. For the BHA, which wrote the rules and set up the system, this could prove a very dangerous situation.
I would have thought that, in the interests of natural justice, this appeal should have been heard by now. Is it Findlay’s intention to appeal against the severity of the punishment or to now deny that any rule was breached? If the latter, then I would have thought that he’s missed the boat and should have ensured he had a lawyer present at the original hearing. If the former, then surely it shouldn’t take the appeal panel too long to review the facts and consider any further mitigating circumstances.
I would have thought that, in the interests of natural justice, this appeal should have been heard by now. Is it Findlay’s intention to appeal against the severity of the punishment or to now deny that any rule was breached? If the latter, then I would have thought that he’s missed the boat and should have ensured he had a lawyer present at the original hearing. If the former, then surely it shouldn’t take the appeal panel too long to review the facts and consider any further mitigating circumstances.
As I understand BHA called HF in earlier and explained what the laying rule was. HF then subsequently ignored that advice so they had to charge him. He already has been given a lighter sentence – 6 months instead of the 18 months norm. They tried to help his defence at the panel hearing. I cannot see what he can appeal on.
Appeal will be heard on 14th July. The independent panel paid by the BHA will be Roger Buckley,Christopher Hodgson and Jane Gillies.
so should the BHA copy the criminal justice system and pay the accused and the witnesses, as well as the prosecutor and the judges – just to level everything up?
i.e. levy those who keep their nose clean to subsidise those who sail close to the wind ?
have they stopped criminal legal aid ?
actually, if you follow through to where the BHA gets its money from, isn’t Harry the one who’s ultimately paying the prosecutor and the judges, via his contributions as owner and punter?
have they stopped criminal legal aid ?
actually, if you follow through to where the BHA gets its money from, isn’t Harry the one who’s ultimately paying the prosecutor and the judges, via his contributions as owner and punter?
Wit,
Shame on you.
HF pays Betfair etc for the betting service they provide. The money is then Betfair’s etc. Betfair etc pay into the levy with their own money. Not aware that any owner entry money ends up with BHA. Courses may pay for BHA services again with own money.If you follow the trail, then HF who is living off of earnings from punting has been funded by other losing punters. It is the losing punters who are paying through HF into Betfair etc. It is the unfairly losing punters that BHA are trying to protect, as well as racing’s integrity, to stop owners laying their own horses, which is why HF has been warned off.
Yes criminal legal aid is now means tested. I think it has been implemented in all areas of the country and if not soon will be.
The MPs got in just before the change.
robert,
i’ll stick with Phil Bull’s analysis that the only two groups that put money into racing are
a) owners and
b) punters.
a) The BHA would get his money mainly from his contribution as an owner since (best i know) they don’t get anything from the Levy Board (except I guess recycled owner prize money by way of registrations, entry fees, etc).
The BHA in its accounts to 31 December 2009 says that it had two material sources of income in the period, yielding GBP 34.1 million turnover (2008 – 34.3m):
– "GBP 33,227,000…from registrations, entry fees and fixture fees collected on its behalf by Weatherby’s Ltd"
– "GBP 937,000 …. from subsidiary Racing Enterprises Ltd commercialising the Database…severely reduced since a court case in 2005 involving William Hill".
b) If he subscribes to the RP / RUK / ATR I guess he’ll contribute as a punter that way to that GBP 937k figure.
If he net-loses punting on the horses (as I thought was the claim at one point?) then he’ll be funding some of his prize money receipts which he’ll give back into the GBP 33.227 figure via the entry fees, etc.
so in effect he is at least in part funding his own prosecutor, judges, etc ?
or am i missing something ? (if irony, i fear its gone over my head).
thanks.
Yes criminal legal aid is now means tested…..
i was going to ask how you means-test a putative criminal – if any of them were to admit to having any property, wouldn’t it just be seized as either facilitating, or putative proceeds of, crime? (that "money-laundering" legislation is very wide).
but then i saw that the new plan seems to be to make the pokey a more exclusive club in future – presumably leaving the property-criminals on the street on equal terms with the banksters, politicians, etc ?
sorry for going off-topic – let me clarify that of course none of the above relates in any way to Harry.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.