- This topic has 34 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Aidan
No, I wouldn’t think so.  I wasn’t there but:
–  the High Court complex isn’t geared to hearings going on outside of 10 am – 4.30 pm
–  it doesn’t take much for Counsels’ submissions to overrun the initial time estimate
–  a judge will typically want at least a small period of reflection, even if he’s fairly clear in his mind (and even more of course if he isn’t), otherwise will be open to folk saying things like "he couldn’t have been listening to / weighing all the submissions properly because he had his decision ready the second we sat down"
–  dare one say, a judge in any event will usually diplomatically want to avoid any perception of giving a virtual slap to either Counsel before him by bouncing back immediately with a ruling.
its not form to comment on Counsel submissions ahead of a ruling, so i’m biting my tongue for now on what’s been  reported.
best regards
wit ÂÂÂ
(Edited by wit at 5:25 pm on July 27, 2006)
No Aidan . The High Court won’t refuse to hear such an application. The principles set out , most recently, in Bradley-v- Jockey Club govern whether having heard the application it is acceded to .
Wit , did you notice that the SL report makes no mention of the HRA submissions? If the HRA was not called on , then unless Davis J comes out tomorrow and decides he needs to hear from them after all (not unknown but a very unusual course ) then Fallon has lost.
Davis J will not be unaware of the public interest in the case and I did not expect an extempore judgment .
Hi Ardross,
Most of the one PA report (which is also what appears on the RP and BBC sites) has been there since lunchtime – its just recently been topped and tailed with news of the adjournment, so everything reported of Mr Pannick’s submissions is from the morning session.
Maybe we’ll get an update later of what happened in the afternoon.
If the HRA weren’t called, I’d agree with you, but there’s no suggestion of that as yet.
best regards
wit
Is it ? I only glanced at it at lunch . I had the impression that there was a bit more from DP this afternoon but you might well be right.
Unusual reporting not to set out what Warby said but perhaps it will be updated.
Wit<br>Do you think Counsel will give a monkeys what is posted about their submissions on an internet forum by an anonymous poster, be it form or not.
hi bluechariot
Counsel probably couldn’t care less, but i’d feel professionally uncomfortable about it.
plus i always proceed on the basis that there is no anonymity on  internet forums, even for those who don’t use their (relatively distinctive) real  names.
best regards
wit
hi Grass
"professionally uncomfortable" as in, while i’m admitted to a certain profession, i accept that there are things that i’m expected to do and not do, and in that context commenting on Counsel’s submissions in a hearing ahead of judgment is something i’m not comfortable doing.
i’m definitely not involved in any way in the case.
but like all practising lawyers i am conscious of still being an officer of the Court, plus separately subject to professional regulation and standards.
best regards
wit
It is not a rule but it is considered bad form . Unlike in the robing room where counsel bitch about their opponents and their submissions all day long .
Fallon’s team have been unsuccessful in overturning the ban.<br>Reasoning for the judgement will follow
I am sure David J has given his reasons- it is the press need to time to understand them.
Quote: from Ardross on 11:45 am on July 28, 2006[br]I am sure David J has given his reasons- it is the press need to time to understand them.
I can assure you I wasn’t involved in any way
:biggrin:
Sorry Davis J !
I note the SL reports that Fallon did not seek permission to appeal . He has 21 days in which to change his mind on that but I am not surprised he has not sought permission.
from the slightly longer PA report on the SL site:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>The judge said the charges against Fallon were grave and it had rightly been said that, if proved, the case would "strike at the heart of racing".
The panel and the appeal board had to balance the need to maintain the integrity of the sport against the interests of the individual jockey.
They were right in their refusal to examine the evidence which, the judge said, had been "cherry-picked" by Fallon’s legal advisers from a wider range of material in order to show the weakness of the CPS case.
They were, in effect, being invited to second-guess the CPS and conduct a mini-trial in advance of the criminal proceedings.
The judge said some of Fallon’s arguments that the ban was disproportionate had been overstated.
His claim that it would effectively end his career as a leading jockey was not supported by any evidence.
Nor was the argument that Fallon and those dependent on him – to whom he was said to have commitments of more than £200,000 a year – faced relative destitution.
The judge agreed that to prevent Fallon from "plying his trade and earning a living" in Britain was a serious matter.
But the panel and the board were entitled to reach the conclusion that racing might suffer damage in the perception of the public if Fallon were allowed to continue riding while facing fraud charges.
Edward Craig, partner at Charles Russell solicitors, lawyers for the HRA, said in a statement outside court: "The HRA has dealt with this matter through a proper process that has been subject to the scrutiny of the High Court and been upheld.
"The HRA welcomes this verdict."
Ian Burton, of Fallon’s solicitors BCL Burton Copeland, said: "My client is understandably disappointed with the outcome of his efforts to have his suspension from riding in the UK lifted pending a trial in 18 months’ time.
"We are not seeking leave to appeal and our focus will be on defending the ill-founded charges against Mr Fallon."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.sportinglife.com/story_get.c … allon.html
<br>The judge’s description of parts of the case put for KF as "overstated" is a nice way of saying what I was thinking this time yesterday after seeing yesterday’s PA report.
No reflection on his Counsel, who in truth never had much to work with –  and possibly may have had some of the non-lawyer folk around KF wanting to hear him say certain things in Court – who knows. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit
(Edited by wit at 1:39 pm on July 28, 2006)
as a postcript, its only Greg Wood in The Guardian (thanks zilzal) who has shown just how little the Judge thought of the submissions made for KF:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/horseracing … 75,00.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
……However, Justice Davis dismissed both arguments in terms that were at times as dismissive as legal propriety will allow.
"When I first read Mr Pannick’s written submission, I was doubtful that its argument could be correct," Justice Davis said as he prepared to deliver the final judgement.
"Having heard his submissions, all those doubts have been removed, and I am convinced that Mr Pannick is wrong."<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ouch !
best regards
wit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.