Non-Raceday Inquiry – GC Small

hearingid: 7935e4307d6ee06d79b0c752f6b4af6a

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - GC Small

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

HRNZ V Geoffrey Clement SMALL ? alleged breaches of Rules 869 (3) (f), 868 (2) and 1001 (v) (i).

HRNZ V Geoffrey Clement SMALL ? alleged breaches of Rules 869 (3) (f), 868 (2) and 1001 (v) (i).

Mr Hart, counsel for Mr Small, has filed for a Judicial Review. He requested a telephone conference to deal with an application for an adjournment of the continuation of the hearing which was scheduled for 10am on 17 April 2007.

The telephone conference was held, commencing at 9:30 am this morning (16 April 2007) ? those involved were myself, Mr Phelan, Mr Hart and Mr Vickerman, Counsel for HRNZ.

Mr Hart cited the "Cropp" case as precedent. He said the alternative was him to seek "interim relief" and that if he did so and was successful, he would seek full indemnity costs.

Mr Vickerman strongly opposed the application. He referred to the history of delays, the statement of claim as it applies to the Judicial Committee and said the Committee had already dealt with those matters, and that there was no order of the Court or precedent authority that he was aware of that prevented the hearing proceeding. He also referred to Small having a right of appeal if any of the charges were upheld.

Mr Hart in response relied on the "Cropp" case and said the decision to adjourn in that case was not criticised by the High Court. He also referred to the practice of the District Court in adjourning cases where a Judicial Review application had been filed.

After considering the submissions made, the Committee decided the appropriate course was to adjourn the hearing to a date to be fixed, pending the result of the Judicial Review hearing. The adjournment is to be on the same conditions as the previous adjournment, namely, that if this committee continues to hear the matter, Mr Hart is entitled to have any prosecution witness recalled and, if he does so require, he retains full rights to cross examination of such witness/es ? and to give seven days notice to Mr Vickerman of the requirement to recall any witness/es. (This aspect was discussed during the telephone conference and Mr Hart commented that the conditions were "very fair".

The principal reasons for granting the adjournment were that the statement of claim refers to both the composition of the Judicial Committee and that in view of the manner in which the Judicial Committee had dealt with the matter to date meant that it should no longer be permitted to hear the case. Those matters are fundamental to the whole "process" and need to be decided before further evidence is heard.

B Rowe

Chairman

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: