- This topic has 290 replies, 76 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Normally each team pay their own costs regardless of result. Of course if found guilty the BHA can impose a fine, eg Henderson and Lynch, I think the fine was £50,000.
If you win at the BHA you do not get your costs but in reality you do not get many winners at a tribunal where the prosecution pay the panelIf proccedings went further than the BHA ,in other words into a proper court where the Judge is not paid by the BHA like the Dean McKeown case then normal cost rules would apply, I think McKeown had to pay 85% of the BHA costs
I see that Howard Johnson has been told of the disciplinary committee’s decision but the findings won’t be published until the 10th. Presumably if his licence has been revoked we can expect not to see any more runners in his name after today?
Tuffers,
I’m fairly sure that the precedent has been set that any disqualification would only take effect after the final date on which an appeal can be lodged.
AP
Only Worcester and Newton Abbot between now and the 10th, unlikely he’d be sending runners to either in any event.
If Johnson’s been banned on welfare grounds, the delay in formally announcing that will reflect badly on racing. A warning off/licence suspension normally comes into force 48 hours after the decision.
There seems to be no precedent here – HJ will have up to 15 days to decide on whether to appeal rather than the normal 7. During this time horses will remain in his care when – he might (innocent until proved guilty, I know) have been told yesterday he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
Welfare is already under intense scrutiny by those opposed to racing – if HJ has been banned, this delay will only provide ammunition for Animal Aid and their ilk.
At the moment everything is just supposition – is it not best to wait until the result is announced.
Then the Exocets can be fired if needed
At the moment everything is just supposition – is it not best to wait until the result is announced.
Then the Exocets can be fired if needed
I’d normally agree with you Paul but if pressure can be brought to bear to speed this announcement, I can’t see a downside.
Paul Struthers just tweeted that HJ was made aware of the findings of the panel but sentence, if any, is yet to be decided/passed.
Who actually pays all these legal costs??? must be costing a fortune.. The BHA?? Or if Johnson loses he has to cough up??
Both sides pay their own legal fees. The Rules allow for the application of costs following a Disciplinary Panel hearing but I don’t think we’ve ever applied for costs at that stage just because we were successful, except in positive samples where the trainer has requested a B sample and costs are awarded in relation to the costs incurred from a B sample. If someone charged won they would be entitled to apply for costs but it’s up the Panel – not us – as to whether to award them.
Costs have certainly be awarded following Appeal board hearings, where the Appeal is unsuccessful and the Board have concluded that the appeal was without merit.
If you win at the BHA you do not get your costs but in reality you do not get many winners at a tribunal where the prosecution pay the panel
In the last two years there have been 57 appeals against the decision of the Stewards heard by the Disciplinary Panel and 24 of those have been successful, a success rate of 42%.
With regards to Disciplinary Panel hearings that aren’t appeals, we only charge where we believe there is a strong likelihood of the Panel finding a breach. If we were charging people willy-nilly and lots of people were found not in breach I think many people would question – rightly – our processes.
If proccedings went further than the BHA ,in other words into a proper court where the Judge is not paid by the BHA like the Dean McKeown case then normal cost rules would apply, I think McKeown had to pay 85% of the BHA costs
The implication that, because Panel members get paid a relatively token sum and expenses for attending (a sum that would pale into comparison against a QCs / Barrister’s daily rate) implies they’re not independent or biased is daft, especially set against an example where the appellant to court lost, hence the awarding of costs against McKeown.
The Rule on when suspensions come into effect is here: http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126251&depth=3 and below (my underlining):
PART 7 – APPEALS – (A)76 to (A)86
________________________________________
85. Implementing decisions subject to right of appeal
85.1 Subject to Paragraphs 85.2 to 85.5,a decision by the Authority against which there is a right of appeal to an Appeal Board shall not be carried into effect until the time for bringing an appeal has expired without an appeal being brought.
85.2 If an appeal is brought, the Authority’s decision shall not be carried into effect until the day after the date on which the appeal
85.2.1 is finally disposed of by an Appeal Board,
85.2.2 is abandoned, or
85.2.3 fails by reason of non-prosecution.
85.3 A refusal by the Authority of any application made to it (such as for the grant or renewal of a licence or permit) shall take effect immediately.
85.4 A decision under Part 6 to suspend a horse from running in future races shall take effect immediately whether or not the Rider, Trainer or other Person has, or exercises, a right of appeal to an Appeal Board.
85.5 A decision to
85.5.1 withdraw or suspend a licence or permit for a period of 3 months or more, or
85.5.2 declare a Person to be a Disqualified Person,
shall take effect on the day after the announcement of the decision unless the Authority or an Appeal Board directs otherwise.
85.6 Any direction under Paragraph 85.5 may be given subject to such restrictions or conditions as the Authority or the Appeal Board considers appropriate.
I initially thought it was 48 hours, not 24, for serious offences, although an individual can make an application for a stay of penalty.If Johnson’s been banned on welfare grounds, the delay in formally announcing that will reflect badly on racing.
There is a big difference between
will
and
might
, and, whilst you might be correct, personally I don’t think it will. From all the journalists that I spoke to about this yesterday (and not just racing journos), not one mentioned this as an issue and all understood the desire to announce the decision with complete and full reasons.
There seems to be no precedent here – HJ will have up to 15 days to decide on whether to appeal rather than the normal 7. During this time horses will remain in his care when – he might (innocent until proved guilty, I know) have been told yesterday he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
Well on the basis that no decision or penalty was announced yesterday he would therefore not have been informed he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be caring for horses.
I also don’t see any massive difference between having 7 days to consider an appeal and 15, when the time to consider an appeal doesn’t begin until after full reasons have been received. There have been numerous examples/precedents where the decision has been announced but the reasons not received for 7 to 14 days. And, from experience, someone can’t even begin to consider whether to appeal or on what grounds until they have the reasons, so I don’t see what relevance that has.
Welfare is already under intense scrutiny by those opposed to racing – if HJ has been banned, this delay will only provide ammunition for Animal Aid and their ilk.
I don’t believe this delay will make a jot of difference. Whether the delay betwen charge and hearing does is perhaps different, though Animal Aid don’t have a track record of being particularly reasonable in anything they have to say about racing. And if he’s found in breach of the neurectomy charge the fact of that alone is damaging enough, but we can hardly be blamed for that (unless you want to suggest we should have swept it under the carpet). If he is found in breach, and if the penalty is perceived (or is) too lenient, again it’s an entirely different matter.
The announcement will be made once we have received the Panel’s decision and reasons.
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
Paul, appreciate you coming here and explaining but I’m going to say I’m pretty appalled. Everyone I know with a real interest in racing has been waiting for the outcome of this for months. Several are already pretty irked its taken so long to even get to a hearing. I despair if the racing press were disinterested but maybe that’s good for Racing for Change as their target audience appears to be the clueless drinker.
If Johnson knows I see no reason why everyone else can’t know now. People are not always sentenced immediately at trial but you know what the verdict is. It makes no difference to Johnson appealing or not if the outcome is made public.
He’s admitted the neurectomy, whatever the excuses. Surely the only debate is "how long". The delay is just creating a ferment of speculation and it’s also giving the impression that it’s going to be brushed under the carpet and it’ll be nothing more than a fine.
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
1. They didn’t, but that’s not to say they won’t in future. My point is the entire delay (from charge to possible sentence, assuming there is one) would be the issue, not just a couple of days at the end. Complaining about 7/8 days would be utterly churlish in my opinion
2. They would have gone through all the evidence but were still hearing some of it on Tuesday. As I’ve said elsewhere, whilst whether or not he is in breach is known by the parties, what neither party is aware of is any penalty if there is to be a penalty.
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
4. Had they given and authorised the publication of a few small paras on breach and penalty I can say with certainty the reasons, when the came, would gain virtually zero coverage. That is not good to or for racing.Paul, appreciate you coming here and explaining but I’m going to say I’m pretty appalled. Everyone I know with a real interest in racing has been waiting for the outcome of this for months. Several are already pretty irked its taken so long to even get to a hearing. I despair if the racing press were disinterested but maybe that’s good for Racing for Change as their target audience appears to be the clueless drinker.
If Johnson knows I see no reason why everyone else can’t know now. People are not always sentenced immediately at trial but you know what the verdict is. It makes no difference to Johnson appealing or not if the outcome is made public.
He’s admitted the neurectomy, whatever the excuses. Surely the only debate is "how long". The delay is just creating a ferment of speculation and it’s also giving the impression that it’s going to be brushed under the carpet and it’ll be nothing more than a fine.
1. Totally understand the frustrations regarding the delay from charge to hearing, it frustrates us. I tried to address this in the Post this week in relation to the jockeys who were charged:
It has always been the Authority’s position to issue charges and subsequently name those individuals involved. We announce the names of those charged because we are committed to being open and transparent – this approach is echoed by other sports and the legal system. When we issue charges we do so in a factual manner and ensure that licensed individuals are aware that we are doing so, providing in advance copies of the releases where practicable.
“The circumstances surrounding these latest charges highlight why we adopt this position. When the rumours about the possibility of impending charges began circulating around 15 different names were being mentioned within press circles. This uncertainty and suspicion was casting a cloud over the whole weighing room, and at least one legal professional told us that the uncertainty was damaging to other jockeys in the weighing room and was causing high levels of stress.
“If we refused to name any individual charged until nearer the time of the hearing a cloud of suspicion would hang over every jockey, and the gossip and press interest would never wane and this could only negatively impact public confidence in racing.
“Five months is an unusually long wait between charges being issued and a hearing being convened. Ideally we would like to deal with these matters sooner but on a number of occasions in the past we have received requests for a minimum period of three months for case preparation. We would usually agree to these requests as being fair and reasonable in complex cases such as this.
“In anticipation of such requests, and given the potential involvement of numerous legal teams, we set aside two weeks from the 20 October for the hearing to ensure we would not have to move away from this date. This gives ample time for those charged to prepare their defence and allows for any pre-hearing issues to be dealt with by the Disciplinary Panel in advance of the hearing if necessary.
“It has not been the practice of the Authority or its predecessor to impose immediate suspensions pending the hearing of our own disciplinary charges.”2. I didn’t say the racing press or any other press were disinterested – quite the opposite. All I said was that none of them raised Joe’s very specific point about the 7/8 day wait for a result being a disaster for racing.
3. On the basis we’ve said full reasons will be published by next Weds, we will proactively release the result and it will be widely distributed by us (and widely covered by the press), anyone who thinks it’s going to be brushed under the carpet isn’t really thinking.
4. I’ve answered why I firmly believe that it’s far better that a result and penalty is accompanied with detailed reasons in my reply to Joe.
5. If he’s in breach and if people feel the Penalty is inadequate that will be a problem for us to deal with even though the Panel acts independent of BHA.
6. Even if the Panel (note, in light of point 5 above, the Panel, not me or BHA) had released the result, there would still be – if he’s in breach – ‘fervent speculation’ about the Penalty. And he’d still have his licence pending any penalty (which additionally deals with one of Joe’s points).
I reckon that’s probably all I can reasonably say on thus until we know the full result.
Paul, thanks for responding in such detail. I assumed there was no precedent for the delay because your response to my question about it on twitter did not, for some reason, reach my Tweetdeck timeline (I found it by going back through all your tweets)- so I owe you an apology there.
I’m surprised that not a single journalist shared my concern that (again we are moving into a hypothetical situation here but pending an announcement, there is no other light in which it can be debated) a licensed trainer who might face a ban for effectively abusing animals in his care, is allowed to retain charge of those animals a minute longer than is necessary.
That neither you nor any of the journalists you spoke to – assuming there were a few – consider that this will reflect badly on racing is astounding, in my view.
Returning to the delay itself, is it not the case that for the panel to make the ‘accused’ aware of their findings, they must have gone through the evidence in detail and taken all aspects into account?
Had they not done so, there would be no findings. If this is the way it works, why then does it take up to 10 days to write down what they must already know?
Joe
1. They didn’t, but that’s not to say they won’t in future. My point is the entire delay (from charge to possible sentence, assuming there is one) would be the issue, not just a couple of days at the end. Complaining about 7/8 days would be utterly churlish in my opinion
I had no comment to make on the delay between charge and hearing because no findings had been reached and the ‘accused’ is entitled to at least get to ‘court’ and present a defence. In this case that defence has been presented and a decision reached on guilt/innocence.
The delay between the findings and the announcement (and imposition of the ‘sentence’) is what I believe is the crux of this matter.
2. They would have gone through all the evidence but were still hearing some of it on Tuesday. As I’ve said elsewhere, whilst whether or not he is in breach is known by the parties, what neither party is aware of is any penalty if there is to be a penalty.
There must be a tariff of penalties – how long can it take to choose from that?
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
I’ve read none, nor would I be so inclined if they run to as much as 10,000 words – how can such length be justified outside of a hugely complicated trial involving something like fraud in the city?
From what you say, the panel must also do their own donkey work in actually compiling their findings – this can only add to the Colonel Blimp image of racing administration. Is there no stenographer/secretary/pro writer employed to assist in compiling the findings?
4. Had they given and authorised the publication of a few small paras on breach and penalty I can say with certainty the reasons, when the came, would gain virtually zero coverage. That is not good to or for racing.Isn’t it the other way round? If the findings run at between 5,000 and 10,000 words, why would an editor/journo plough through them?
You mention in your other response I referred to a ‘disaster for racing’ – I did not. I believe I said it would reflect badly and I stand by that.
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused.
Paul, thank you again for the detail. I have annotated your response – mine in italics.
Joe
- Total Posts 17716
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused.
Leaving aside the fact that The Law and "natural justice" do not habitually place the rights of animals above those of humans, in this case the animal was already dead, so had no benefit to glean from the doubt.
Unless you’re accusing Johnson of more general, ongoing crimes against welfare, which weren’t on the charge sheet as far as I know, I can’t see that a hiatus of a very few days is anything to get too exercised about.
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused.
Leaving aside the fact that The Law and "natural justice" do not habitually place the rights of animals above those of humans, in this case the animal was already dead, so had no benefit to glean from the doubt.
Unless you’re accusing Johnson of more general, ongoing crimes against welfare, which weren’t on the charge sheet as far as I know, I can’t see that a hiatus of a very few days is anything to get too exercised about.
I suspect that in cases of animal cruelty the Law does indeed place the rights of the animal above the abuser.
My point was not about the dead horse, it was about animals still in the care of anyone found guilty of animal cruelty. I’m not getting ‘exercised’ about it from a personal viewpoint. My frustrations arise from an issue which I believe will reflect badly on racing, offer ammunition to anti-racing campaigners and, annoyingly, a matter that could easily be dealt with given some foresight, a little planning and an appropriate set of priorities.
Graham Wylie obviously doesn’t feel there’s any need to delay. He’s just sent six horses from Howard Johnson to Paul Nicholls.
I had no comment to make on the delay between charge and hearing because no findings had been reached and the ‘accused’ is entitled to at least get to ‘court’ and present a defence. In this case that defence has been presented and a decision reached on guilt/innocence.
The delay between the findings and the announcement (and imposition of the ‘sentence’) is what I believe is the crux of this matter.
So we should put in place an interim suspension even though, if there is a penalty, the penalty might not be suspension?
There must be a tariff of penalties – how long can it take to choose from that?
There is a recommended range but the range is very wide indeed and, if there is a penalty, you are potentially dealing with people’s (and not just the trainer’s) livelihoods.
3. If you’ve read any of the Panel’s previous reasons in other hearings you wil know they are almost thesis-like – 5,000 to 10,000 words – which is why it might take 7/8 days to write down, especially when the Panel aren’t employees and hold down other jobs.
I’ve read none, nor would I be so inclined if they run to as much as 10,000 words – how can such length be justified outside of a hugely complicated trial involving something like fraud in the city?
From what you say, the panel must also do their own donkey work in actually compiling their findings – this can only add to the Colonel Blimp image of racing administration. Is there no stenographer/secretary/pro writer employed to assist in compiling the findings?
Well if you’re not going to read them wouldn’t that undermine any comment you make on any disciplinary the findings of penalty? I find that stance incredibly surprising.
Such length is justified because, as I said, you’re potentially dealing with people’s livelihoods and they are entitled to know why a decision has been reached, particularly in light of any appeal or legal challenge. Moreover, it is far more transparent for the public and press to be able to read these and then pass judgement on the decision and sanction (and of course on the individual themselves).
Of course the Panel compile their findings, in the same way that a judge or magistrates write their own judgements.
We don’t have a stenographer, but have the hearings recorded and then transcribed.
So we’re open, transparent, publish detailed reasons (first sport to do so I think), open some enquiries up and use technology rather than a stenographer. If all that adds to a Colonel Blimp image, ‘tally ho’ I say.
Isn’t it the other way round? If the findings run at between 5,000 and 10,000 words, why would an editor/journo plough through them?
Because they’re professional, interested and want to report an accurate story and welcome such detailed reasons as long as they come in a timely manner and not at 5pm, as has unfortunately happened in the past (and for which you and anyone else would be entirely right to criticise us for and for which I would make little, if any, defence).
It also helps that there are invariably numerous sections of the reasons that are newsworthy.
You mention in your other response I referred to a ‘disaster for racing’ – I did not. I believe I said it would reflect badly and I stand by that.
That was me being lazy and paraphrasing, apologies. As I’ve said previously, you might be right but I think any such criticism – by you or anyone else – would be churlish and that the decision would be easily defendable.
Anyone found guilty of mistreating horses should, at the very least, have his or her licence suspended pending sentence/appeal – the benefit of the doubt should go to the animal, not the accused…I suspect that in cases of animal cruelty the Law does indeed place the rights of the animal above the abuser.My point was not about the dead horse, it was about animals still in the care of anyone found guilty of animal cruelty.
That assumes guilt of ‘cruelty’. We don’t know that.
I’m not getting ‘exercised’ about it from a personal viewpoint. My frustrations arise from an issue which I believe will reflect badly on racing, offer ammunition to anti-racing campaigners and, annoyingly, a matter that could easily be dealt with given some foresight, a little planning and an appropriate set of priorities.
As I’ve said before, the simple act of the operation being performed will provide ammo to anti-racing campaigners, not a 7/8 day delay. That concern/ammo will opnly be successfully addressed through an appropriate sanction if he’s found in breach. There is no lack of foresight, planning nor is it a matter of the wrong set of priorities. The priorities are entirely in the correct order – innocent until proven guilty, fair hearing and then a decision that will be widely published that will include full and detailed reasons for that decision.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.