The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Poor old Kieran Fallon

Home Forums Archive Topics Poor old Kieran Fallon

Viewing 7 posts - 69 through 75 (of 75 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #96610
    bluechariot
    Participant
    • Total Posts 569

    Then why is there all that business about the security services not wanting them to be admissable as they would have to disclose their sources.<br>I believe there are taped conversations of the Omagh bombers but they cannot be used in court.

    (Edited by bluechariot at 11:54 am on Aug. 3, 2006)

    #96611
    cubone
    Member
    • Total Posts 70

    The more I read about jockeys and trainers over the past 100 years many were tipsters as well as Jockeys and trainers.

    It is a know fact tha Jockeys are the worlds worst tipster and know very little more than the average man once a race starts.

    So I have come to a conlusion that if anyone,s Legal team require help I will get them off any charges rega:biggrin: rding Proof behond doubt.

    Cubone

    #96612
    Galejade
    Member
    • Total Posts 185

    I also enjoyed Wit’s expertise but I cannot say it eases the furrows on my brow since the HRA are obviously operating in a minefield. The advent of exchanges has made us all bookmakers now and it has always been mooted that it was that fraternity who had a financial interest in stopping the odd well backed horse. These ML regulations are adding to the complications and it appears from the slightly different approach of the HRA in each of the Hillfield Girl, Carter and now the "Fallon" cases that the HRA are having to come to terms with a new playing field.

    In this case the HRA’s "noses twitched" very early since when they have kept their own council and the Public have not been informed whether the HRA interviewed any of the people originally arrested by the Police let alone those charged (except for Berry et ali). Nor do we know whether they reviwed the race tapes and passed on any commentary although the Police asked Ray Murrihy to fulfill this function.

    Wit – do you consider this trappist attitude by the HRA was so as not to predujice the trial? or is it to keep their powder dry in the event of a failure to secure a conviction against those defendants licenced by the HRA?

    I ask because should a conviction not be secured Racing appears in a difficult position. Can the HRA subsequently move against the jockeys or Alan Berry  under the rules of racing ie failing to allow a horse to run on its merits?  ( even if the tapes have been reviewed in the trial)?

    If they cannot  dont we have a big black hole? The conspiracy whiff means the HRA cannot act and subsequently cannot warn off people they may consider have broken the rules of Racing.

    #96615
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2164

    Hi cubone

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>For a person to be charged with fraud…I can assume that there must be a paper trail and telephone conversations. that will be the mainstay of evidence that a jury will consider. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Its critical constantly to keep in mind the exact offence charged.

    "Conspiracy to defraud" requires different things to be proved than "defrauding".  

    For one thing, with a conspiracy charge, its not necessary to show that the thing conspired to be done, ever in fact ended up being done.

    A person is guilty of conspiracy to defraud if he agrees with one or more other persons by dishonesty (1) to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he would be or might be entitled; or (2) to injure some proprietary right of a person.

    There may or may not be an intent to deceive, and there may or may not be an intent to cause economic or financial loss to the proposed victim or victims – it suffices if there is a dishonest agreement to expose the proposed victim to some form of economic risk or disadvantage to which he would not otherwise be exposed

    The mental element of the offence  consists in the intention of executing the unlawful elements in the conduct contemplated by the agreeement, in the knowledge of those facts which render the conduct unlawful.

    A person may not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is shown that he intended to carry the agreement into effect.

    But, if he did so intend, it is immaterial that nothing was actually done in pursuance of it.

    It seems that if the person has made a mistake of law (ie he thinks something is legal when in reality it is not), that will not afford a defence to conspiracy.

    However, if the person mistakenly believes that a state of facts existed, which, if true, would render lawful the unlawful conduct, that would afford a defence.

    ……<br>"dishonesty" probably has the same meaning as in the Theft Act:  in other words, in determining whether the accused acted dishonestly the test is (a) whether his actions were dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people; and (b) if so, whether he himself realised that his actions were, according to those standards, dishonest.

    <br>if not through testimony of someone present at the time, the agreement if denied would normally have to be proven by reference to documents and other materials, paper-based or otherwise, and records of events (calls being made, meetings being held, etc).    Different constructions can always be put on such things.  

    At the end of the day the totality of what is shown must be enough – taking into account all explanations by the accused and all attacks by the accused on the prosection case – to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused perpetrated the offence charged.        

    The jury can’t be in two minds; they cannot have any reasonable doubt.   It’s a very high standard that has to be met before someone can be punished.  

       <br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Watching a horserace to see if a breech of rules took place is impossible for a jury, matters not how experienced they are to find without any shadow of doubt.I watch many taces during the year and you could never say with out doubt that a horse was stopped for financial gain just from watching the race. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I agree that it is often very difficult, however much one’s been in the business, to conclude anything – and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt – about a horserace by watching it from the stands or on TV, as regards the way discretions are exercised by those involved, and why they might have done A rather than B, C, X, Y, or Z.

    I would be surprised if a CPS decision that there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction on a conspiracy to defraud charge, was to depend to any significant extent on what a jury drawn from the general public might think of a particular ride or rides given by a jockey.   "I don’t know enough about it to form an opinion" would probably be what most would say.

    One would expect there to have to be much, much more behind any CPS decision, made on the back of a review by a QC experienced in the field, that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction.      

    Which is not to say a conviction is guaranteed in any way:  a reasonable prospect of getting a "guilty" verdict still leaves lots of room for a "not guilty" verdict, and statistically each happens very regularly.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Telephone conversations and tape recordings of conversations. a little more simple for a jury to understand however history shows that jockeys are renound for spiving. tipping horses that they ride themselves or others. may be against JC rules now but not serious enough to be warned off for life.

    Now then a paper trail of money and cheques that is a lot easier to understand by 12 just men and true.

    So those who say impossible to convict anyone of a very serious crime will have to wait for the full evidence to be uncovered. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    yes, all we can do is wait and see – everything else is speculation, and quite dangerous to do in case  its seen to prejudice the process.

    As to telephone tapping,  the law is now basically in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which sets down a basic rule that it is a criminal offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public postal service or a public telecommunication system.

    Lawful interception can happen either by getting a warrant; or without a warrant by relying on various other grounds set out in the Act (including with consent, various operational reasons, etc).

    The RIPA is quite carefully drafted to mesh in with European legislation – for example, interception is not in breach of Art 8 of the human rights convention (respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) where, under 8(2) of the convention, it is necessary for the prevention or detection of serious crime.

    Evidence gained from interceptions is admissible in Court.

    There was a situation under RIPA’s predecessor – The Interception of Communications Act 1985 – where lawyers for the accused (particularly in big drug trafficking trials) were quite legitimately using the rules of criminal evidence to demand disclosure of full details and product from tapping operations, particularly where the police had used insiders and were relying on the taps being admitted not by virtue of awarrant but by virtue of that insider’s consent to the tap.    

    Often in such cases the police would prefer to drop the prosecution rather than have to disclose what (under the then rules) they would have been obliged to disclose about their operating methods and technical capabilities (which even then were quite eye-popping).

    RIPA has put a lot of those issues away: full text available here:

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/ … 00023.html

    RIPA is a statute from 2000, though, and there are issues about how far it can have retrospective effect on the 1985 Act regime – the Omagh bombings of course were in 1998.  

    <br>Galejade,

    As you say, the HRA is feeling its way.  

    It has a significant ex-police expertise now and, while some might reflect that "to the man used to a hammer, everything looks like a nail", as with the JC before it, it seems very conscious of its own lack of investigatory powers over the betting side.  

    The Gambling Commission may come to cover that gap, but until then the only resource in town with the necessary investigatory powers on the betting side is  the police.  If the police accept a particular betting history as an appropriate matter on which to expend public resources, it that has to be the safe as well as cheapest course.  

    Bit like the HKJC relationship with the ICAC (except that hopefully the HRA doesn’t feel about the City of London Police the way the HKJC apparently felt about the ICAC handling of the Fradd case, but had to bite its tongue).

    Go that way, and trappism comes with the territory.

    Doubtless, as with the JC in relation to Bradley’s testimony in the Wright trial, the HRA will be alert to what is said in Court, and if something emerges from testimony that suggests breaches of the Rules of Racing, the HRA will feel free to revisit.    

    The HRA’s province is the Rules, rather than the criminal law.   There’s no necessary inconsistency between a person being found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud, yet be reviewed on evidence emerging of breach of the Rules on grounds which do not use "corruption" in the allegations.

    The timing of the Gambling Commission coming in fully in September 2007, which likely will be ahead of the trials if they run the whole way on current  time estimates, means that the regulatory landscape and the debate will have moved on by the time jury verdicts are due to be returned.

    <br>If the charges collapse some time ahead of September 2007, there may in some quarters be perceived to be an uncomfortable hiatus for the HRA .   IMO that would be unfair – folk project expectations onto it as regards the betting side that it is neither equipped nor empowered to police purely because it’s the only authority that happens to be visible in the general area (never mind its actual remit).

    If and as soon as the charges are withdrawn,  I’m sure the licences will immediately be returned without any second-guessing as to why such withdrawal happened –  any more than there was any second-guessing when the licences were taken away as to why the charges had been laid.    It’s an automatic process.      

    Whatever happens, I’m sure the HRA will be relieved to be able soonest to stick just to its own province, and leave the whole betting side to the Gambling Commission and/or the police.

    <br>best regards

    wit<br>

    (Edited by wit at 5:22 pm on Aug. 3, 2006)

    #96616
    cubone
    Member
    • Total Posts 70

    Wit I will send the £xxxx fee at the end of this weeks trading.

    Thank you.:biggrin:

    Cubone

    #96617
    Aragorn
    Member
    • Total Posts 2208

    Wit,

    The governments consultation papers on the implementation of the third ML directive don’t suggest that bookies or exchanges will be included in the scope of the new ML legislation… This would be an opportunity for that to be challenged though

    Excellent post by the way, thorough understanding of the intricacies..

    (Edited by Aragorn at 11:05 am on Aug. 4, 2006)

    #96618
    Lingfield
    Member
    • Total Posts 919

    KF misses the Breeders Cup as his legal team have withdrawn his application to ride

Viewing 7 posts - 69 through 75 (of 75 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.