Non Raceday Inquiry – Stratford RC 30Jan09 Pt 2

hearingid: 986202616489cb4b15af52418a8d8b27

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - Stratford RC 30Jan09 Pt 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

[32]              Mr Joe Bishop, who was involved with the COTG, was also a member of the SRC from 1998 until the AGM on 20 October 2002.  He gave evidence for the informant.  He stated that in most matters involving the affairs of the SRC, particularly during 2002, five of the nine-member committee supported Mr Caskey, the President, and Mr Blue, the Vice President.  Ms Sonja Lawson and he “were normally lone voices seeking to oppose many of the practices that were going on.”  He gave evidence that he was at both the committee meeting on 5 August 2002 and that on 2 September 2002 when the blackballing of prospective members of the club had occurred.

[33]              There was a conflict of evidence concerning what happened at the meeting of 5 August.  Mr Bishop stated in his evidence that when the question of the membership applications came up for discussion, the secretary, Ms Rowe, told the President, Mr Caskey, that a large number of applications had been received for membership of the club.  Mr Caskey made it known to the committee that he knew about the applications and he said words to the effect of “I will bloody well soon fix this” and he got up and left the meeting.  Mr Bishop stated that it was clear from the attitude and conduct of Mr Caskey and Mr Blue and the other members of the committee, other than Ms Lawson, that the persons applying for membership had no show of being accepted. He said that in response to a question from Mr Caskey as to why there so many applications, he told Mr Caskey it was because of the groundswell of concern about the track, the lack of horses, and how people were being treated.  Ms Lawson said that in general business the issue of the membership applications was discussed and that Mr Bishop told the committee that a lot of people had concern about the club and what it was doing. 

[34]              Mr Caskey came back to the meeting room with two boxes.  One had two portions, with white balls in one portion and black balls in the other.  Ms Lawson recalled Mr Bishop objecting to blackballing people, saying that it was only for criminals and the like.  She said Mr Caskey made a comment about how the committee would fix these applications, stating they would block vote all of them at the same time and it would only take a few minutes.  Ms Lawson said she objected to this and said that the Rules did not allow this practice.  She recalled Mr Bishop complaining that there was a need to give people a reason as to why they were blackballed.  One of the defendants, Mr Needham, made a comment about referring the names to the AGM but Mr Blue said there was not time.  They then proceeded to vote.

[35]              The nine members of the committee were given a supply of white and black balls and voted by placing a ball into the ballot box.  White signified acceptance of an applicant as a member and black a rejection.  Mr Bishop stated that he used only white balls when voting for the prospective members and that all other committee members, except Ms Lawson and himself, used black balls.  He also stated that the secretary Ms Rowe announced each result as 7 – 2 against.

[36]              Ms Lawson confirmed she was at the meetings on 5 August 2002 and 2 September 2002 and that she used a white ball for each vote.  She gave clear evidence relating to the ballot apparatus.  Ms Lawson also made a “mock up” of the ballot apparatus, which was very similar to the apparatus later produced by the defendants in evidence.  Ms Lawson was also very clear that Ms Rowe had announced the result after each vote.  This, she said, was 7 – 2 on every occasion.

[37]              We turn to consider the manner of voting.  Both Mr Bishop and Ms Lawson stated the vote was not secret because each person before voting had to reach into the boxes of balls in full view of everyone else and the colour of the ball that was chosen could be seen, as neither box had a lid on it.  Mr Bishop vehemently denied the proposition that the defendants took both black and white balls, saying he could clearly see that only black ones were taken.  Ms Lawson said that some members took a handful of balls and that these were only black ones.  It was therefore easy to see that that person was only voting with this colour.  The defendants each said that the balls, after voting commenced, had become mixed because the balls were simply tipped back into the boxes.

[38]              Unfortunately the secretary of the SRC from 11 February 2002 until 31 December 2003, Ms Dianne Rowe, was quite uncertain as to the manner in which she announced the results of the voting.  She stated she was at the committee meetings on 5 August and 2 September 2002.  She also confirmed that each candidate was voted for in turn and that she had checked the ballot box on each occasion, and had announced that the candidate had “failed”.  There was one exception to this.  She believed she had indicated on one occasion that a person had “passed’.  This was queried by a member of the committee, and on rechecking, there was more than one black ball, and thus the person failed.  She had no recollection as to whether her assessments generally had been checked.  She did not see how each member voted and believed it would be virtually impossible for anyone to see this.  She could not recall whether each member had a number of black and white balls.  Under cross examination, she accepted that it was a possibility that the defendants took only black balls. 

[39]              Ms Rowe also said in her evidence-in–chief that she did not say what the split in each vote was.  However, in cross-examination, she agreed that she “could not recall” whether or not she said “7 – 2 against”.  She said she could not remember announcing the numbers of each ball counted by her, but she might have.  When it was pointed out to her that she had stated in her affidavit to the Inglis Inquiry that she had not given a count, she indicated that that was more likely to be correct as it was closer to the events in question.  However, she indicated she could not remember “what happened last month or last week, let alone 2002.”  In our judgment, this witness could not remember very much at all, and indeed she was quite evasive when giving her evidence.  She was not a convincing witness, and her evidence on crucial points could not be relied upon.  She had little recall of key events.

[40]           Mr Tony Bird, a sports/racing journalist for the Taranaki Daily News gave evidence that he spoke to Mr Caskey for about 20 minutes on the afternoon of the day after the first blackballing.  He had taped this conversation and he prepared the quotations in his article in the Daily News, dated 7 August 2002, on the blackballing incident, from this tape and his notes.  His recollection was, and the article itself records, that Mr Caskey said “I think I'm correct in saying the vote on all the applications was seven against and two for”.  He said he had no knowledge of the voting figures prior to speaking to Mr Caskey and the 7 – 2 split and the figures were such as to  “stick in his mind”.  He said he no longer had the tape as it was his practice to keep tapes for only 2 years.  In response to questioning by Mr Brosnahan, he stated he no recollection of Mr Caskey saying that members of the committee had both black and white balls.  He also described the extensive local and national media coverage the blackballing had received.  He said he believed the media interest was because of the bizarre nature of a club, in these modern times, deciding to blackball prospective members.  He said it had not been used for half a century or more.

[41]           Mr Anthony Enting, the General Manager of the Waikato Racing Club, gave evidence as to the frequency of an application for membership of a racing club being declined.  He stated that attracting members to join racing clubs was important and that clubs welcome new members.  He said that the Waikato Racing Club advertises for new members in every race book for each race meeting it runs, and he could state that the majority of clubs did the same.  He stated that blackballing was not known to be used in this day and age, and that refusal of an application would be “rare”.  He could recall only one such instance in his 30 years of administration in the racing industry, and that was because the applicant had a recent criminal history and was therefore undesirable to have as a member.  He stated that, in his view, this should be the only reason for the rejection of any person’s application for membership.

[42]           Mr Enting also stated he was aware of the publicity surrounding the declining by the committee of the SRC in 2002 of the membership applications of a large number of persons.  He said that if all those persons declined had criminal convictions or other instances of proven misconduct which would make them undesirable in terms of their character, then their being declined membership might be justified.  However, if they were declined because they posed a threat to the power base of the incumbent committee, then, in his view, such action would be detrimental to the interests of the racing industry.  A mass blackballing, such as occurred at the SRC, and which was widely reported, he said, “harms the modern, forward thinking and dynamic image that racing is trying to project.”

[43]           Under cross-examination Mr Enting agreed that a good reason for declining an application for membership would be if a person was in arrears with his or her subscription.  However, the evidence before us does not suggest that any of the applicants for membership of the SRC were members.  All persons were trying to gain membership.  They were not in arrears with their subscriptions.

[44]           Mr David Jewell, the General Manager of RACE (Inc) (an amalgamation of the Manawatu, Marton, Feilding and Rangitikei Racing Clubs) gave similar evidence to Mr Enting.  He stated in his 14 years in office no persons had ever been declined membership of the 4 racing clubs in the RACE partnership.  He stated that the only reason a person should be declined membership of a club was a criminal record, which would bar that person pursuant to the Rules of Racing, or a proven reputation which would make them undesirable as a member.  He added if such an occasion were to arise and a person was declined membership, that person should be advised officially as to why their application had been refused.  He also stated the mass declining of membership by the SRC, which was widely publicised in the media was, in his view, detrimental to the interests of racing. 

[45]           Mr Jewell’s and Mr Enting’s opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the defendants’ actions were detrimental to the interests of racing was not challenged at the time their evidence was given.  However, we accept whether the defendants’ actions were detrimental to the interests of racing is ultimately an issue which this Tribunal has to determine.

[46]           Five prospective members, who had been refused membership of the SRC, gave evidence before this Tribunal. 

[47]           Mr Aidan Schumacher stated he had been involved in racing as an owner, trainer and breeder, and lived in the Stratford district.  His family had a long association with the racing industry and he had not previously been a member of the SRC.  He was involved with the COTG.  No reason was given to him by the SRC for the rejection of his application.  He stated he did not have a criminal conviction that would deem him to be a prohibited person pursuant to the Rules of Racing and he was not an undesirable person in terms of his character and conduct.  In cross-examination he was asked if he had made a complaint about the track.  He agreed that he had, but that the problem had been fixed.

[48]           Ms Melanie Cooper stated she was involved in racing as an owner, trainer and breeder, and lived in the Stratford district.  She had not previously been a member of the SRC.  She was involved with the COTG.  No reason was given to her by the SRC for the rejection of her application.  She stated she did not have a criminal conviction that would deem her to be a prohibited person pursuant to the Rules of Racing and was not an undesirable person in terms of her character and conduct. 

[49]           Mr Paul Hancock stated he was involved in racing as an owner, trainer and breeder, and lived in the Stratford district.  He had previously been a member of the SRC and was a committee member from the mid 90s until 1999.  He did not renew his membership for the 2000/01 year.  He was involved with the COTG.  No reason was given by the SRC for the rejection of his application.  He stated he did not have a criminal conviction that would deem him to be a prohibited person pursuant to the Rules of Racing and he was not an undesirable person in terms of his character and conduct.  He said in his time on the committee the SRC had received many applications for membership and he could not recall any being declined.  He said new members are generally welcomed and are vital to the continued growth of a club.  As a result of his blackballing and the activities of the committee and the management of the SRC, his horses were no longer trained in Stratford, but were with outside trainers.  He was thus deprived of the opportunity of being able to see his horses at the Stratford track.  In cross-examination he was asked why he had resigned from the committee, and he agreed it was because of a vote of no confidence in the committee from the floor in 1999 and he was not the only committee member to have resigned at this time.

[50]       &n

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: