Non Raceday Inquiry – Stratford RC 30Jan09 Pt 5

hearingid: 6e76d50c376b0431d3ba09eec89d6840

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 5

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

[107]              It added that if the complaint was considered to have possible merit, it should then have been raised with the candidate.  Mr Broughton should have been given an opportunity to address the committee and to state his case as to why he was eligible to stand.  Mr Blue, as the other contender for the presidency, should have disqualified himself and taken no part in the meeting or the vote on Mr Broughton’s candidacy.

[108]              This Tribunal is satisfied (as was the Court of Appeal) that the committee took none of these steps.  Ms Rowe did not approach Mr Broughton with the concern that had been raised.  Mr Broughton was not given an opportunity to explain his position.  Mr Blue did not recuse himself, and took an active part in the meeting, including voting to reject Mr Broughton’s nomination.  There were similar process flaws, as the Court of Appeal noted, in the treatment of the nominations for committee membership proposed or seconded by Mr Broughton. 

[109]              The Court of Appeal concluded at para [93]: “The committee’s decision to refuse Mr Broughton’s nomination was accordingly unlawful on two grounds.  First, he was eligible to stand.  Secondly, the committee adopted a flawed process, breaching natural justice in the manner outlined.”

[110]              The issue then is whether in this Tribunal’s view these unlawful actions of the committee were detrimental to the interests of racing.  It is clear that Mr Broughton was always a member within the SRC’s Rules.  We place weight on the fact that Mr Broughton paid his subscription for two years in 2001, and later had a notice sent to him for his next year’s subscription, which he paid in July 2002, well before the September 2002 committee meeting, and the October 2002 special committee meeting.  He was therefore well-established as a financial member when he was nominated to stand for President.  His position was thus clearly different from the other members who had not paid their current subscriptions and who were recorded in the minutes of the 30 September meeting as having been sent letters. 

[111]              The evidence for the defendants that they were simply following the club’s Rules, as they were bound to do, is not credible.  We believe the conclusion to be inescapable that the defendants, Blue, Caskey, and Hart, who voted to the effect that Mr Broughton was not a financial member of the SRC did so to ensure that Mr Broughton was ineligible to stand as President.  They thereby further ensured that those persons nominated by him for the committee of the SRC would fall by the wayside as well, in that they would then be found to have been nominated by a person who was not a member of the SRC.

[112]              We are satisfied to the “enhanced” civil standard as explained in Z (above) at para [16] of this decision, that the defendants’ intention in so voting was to perpetuate their control of the SRC by ensuring that persons who might possibly have different views as to the management and future of the SRC to those held by the majority of the committee were ineligible to stand for membership of the committee.  We find these actions, viewed in this light, to be detrimental to the interests of racing, in that they can readily be seen to be to the disadvantage of and to have damaged the racing industry.  We therefore find these charges to be proved against the three defendants, Blue, Caskey and Hart, who were present at the special meeting on 11 October 2002 and who voted in favour of the motion that Mr Broughton was not a financial member of the SRC.

Conclusion

[113]              In summary:

• the three charges of breaching Rule 1001(1)(v)(i) in Information number 62176 against the defendant Mr Murray Blue are proved;

• the three charges of breaching Rule 1001(1)(v)(i) in Information number 62177 against the defendant Mr Len Caskey are proved;

• the three charges of breaching Rule 1001(1)(v)(i) in Information number 65000 against the defendant Mr Wayne Hart are proved;

• the two charges of breaching Rule 1001(1)(v)(i) in relation to the blackballing at the SRC committee meetings on 5 August and 2 September 2002 in Information number 62174 against the defendant Mr James Gilbert are proved;

• the two charges of breaching Rule 1001(1)(v)(i) in relation to the blackballing at the SRC committee meetings on 5 August and 2 September 2002 in Information number 64999 against the defendant Mr Brian Needham are proved;

[114]              The two charges in Information numbers 62174 and 64999 against the defendants Mr Gilbert and Mr Needham, relating to the finding that Mr Broughton was a non-financial member of the SRC, were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

[115]              The issues of penalties and costs need to be determined.  We direct that a telephone conference be held a week after the delivery of this judgment at which time the issue of whether both oral and written submissions are required will be considered.  With reference to this and the related travel and hearing costs associated with a further oral hearing, counsel may wish to consider the fact that this decision (together with Miller J’s judgment and the related appeal to the Court of Appeal) has for the first time set out clearly the ambits of the blackballing process.  We thus see this Tribunal’s judgment in this matter as having a significant educative function, in that other racing clubs and sporting organisations with similar constitutions will now be aware that blackballing prospective members can only be done for legitimate reasons.  We believe this fact, together with the period of time that has elapsed since these breaches occurred, are matters that should be considered when determining the issue of penalty.

(Under the Privacy Act Schedules 1 and 2 are not shown). 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1001.1.v.i

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: