Non Raceday Inquiry – Stratford RC 30Jan09 Pt 3

hearingid: bf289c273d89beaf78a259e686e93a7f

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 3

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

[54]              Mr Murray Blue was Vice President of the SRC at the time of the August 5 and September 2 committee meetings.  He denied there was any consideration of a block voting.  He said all committee members were in favour of each application being dealt with separately.  He also denied that he had blackballed all the applicants.  He said he had voted in favour of a number of his friends.  He also disputed that the numbers were announced, or that anyone would have seen what balls were being used when each committee member voted.  He said there was one dispute and one of the committee members had checked the ballot box on this occasion.  He said there were comments like “Who’s he?” when the names of applicants were read out.  There was no discussion of whether persons were worthy of membership; ie of the merits of the candidates.  He said the hijacking of the club was not the reason he had voted against people.

[55]              The written “background” paper prepared by Mr Blue for the 20 October 2002 AGM (Exh “G”), shows, we believe, what Mr Blue’s intentions were when the blackballing took place.  We refer specifically to the third page where the nominations for membership of the SRC were described as being “with the intention of hi-jacking the election”.  It was further said:

“All applications were subjected to the secret ballot system as laid down in the club’s rules, using the “blackball” method, and all were rejected, because the objective fooled no-one…. When these applications were received, it was suggested, and would have been easy, to simply sign up relatives and friends from the other side of the fence.  This was opposed by the committee because it was seen as simply compounding the instability within the club; this carry-on needs to be halted for the good of the club.”

[56]              Mr Wayne Hart gave similar evidence to the other witnesses in stating that he voted for some of the candidates and that it was impossible to see how individual committee members voted.  He also disputed that the numbers were read out.  He said it was always a “fail” except on one occasion, which was Mr Jeffares.  He believed Mr Needham got up and checked the ballot box and there were 3 black balls.  Mr Hart was very uncertain as to how many of the candidates he had voted for, stating in response to a question, that he voted for “between 1 and 40”.  He also said on quite a few occasions, when questioned, that he “couldn’t recall”.

[57]              Mr Len Caskey confirmed he was the President of the SRC at the time of the August 5 and September 2 meetings.  He said that the Rules required membership applications to be dealt with by means of a ballot and that he wanted to ensure that the ballot was a secret one.  He arranged for the ballot box.  On being questioned, he said that usually the voting was done by a show of hands or orally.  He agreed that he had never seen a ballot box used since he became a member of the club in the 1950s.  Why this should be so on this occasion, when previous votes were by show of hands, was never explained to this Tribunal other than by reference to the fact that this sudden influx of prospective members was unprecedented.  Mr Caskey believed these persons had been misinformed that the SRC was not being run properly.  He said it was impossible to see what colour ball any individual committee member placed in the ballot box.  He also said the coloured balls were tipped back into the shoe-box which had originally contained the boxes containing the black and white balls.  As a consequence, the shoe-box had an assortment of black and white balls from which committee members replenished their supply of balls.  He also disputed that Ms Rowe gave the number for and against, and he said he voted for a number of the applicants.  He said a number of prospective applicants were not interested in racing.  This he knew, because Stratford was a small community.  He voted against these people.  He said he was surprised that not one of the applicants was successful.

[58]              In cross-examination about the accuracy of the Daily News article of 7 August 2002 (Exh “Q”) written by Mr Bird, Mr Caskey said he could not remember the conversation, but that the article was not accurate.  He said his reference to 7 - 2 was a reference to the split on the committee and not to voting. 

[59]              Mr Brian Needham stated that each committee member had black and white balls on the table in front of them and used these to vote.  He was more strident than the others in saying that he had voted for quite a few of the applicants.  He refuted the evidence that Ms Rowe had given a count of the balls stating she only said “pass” or “fail”.  He said she had said “pass” on one occasion with respect to Mr Jeffares.  That was questioned by a committee member who said “check that” and there were found to be 6 white and 3 black balls.  He said he was not aware that the prospective members wished to take over the club and this was not a factor in his decision making.  This statement appears to be at odds with the views he expressed in his letter to the Daily News (Exh “14”) on 6 September 2002, when he said with reference to the vote at the 2 September meeting: “As for the committee blackballing 15 new members, the facts are a large majority were repeat applicants from the previous 42 rent-a-members.  Discussion and dialogue were the way to resolve these issues, not grand-standing in the media.”

Submissions from counsel

[60]              Mr Colson described the mass blackballing as an act detrimental to racing.  By blackballing the large number of candidates from membership of the SRC on two separate occasions, the defendants had dishonestly and improperly used their powers for an ulterior purpose to ensure their own positions.  He emphasised that the committee had given no reason for declining any of the applications for membership and that it was not shown that any of the candidates had criminal convictions or were of undesirable character.  He asked this Tribunal to draw the inference that the blackballing had been undertaken by the defendants in order to preserve their positions as office holders of the SRC.  In so doing, he submitted, they had acted in a manner which was detrimental to the sport of racing.

[61]              Mr Brosnahan submitted that there was no evidence of any pre-determination. It was impossible for anyone to know how a particular committee member voted and there had been no recitation of the outcome of each vote.  The voting was not 7 - 2 on each occasion, as alleged by the informant, but varied according to which application for membership was being considered.  He said the defendants, as members of an incorporated society, were free to vote as they wished.  He stated that if this Tribunal could not reach a conclusion as to what happened at the meetings on August 5 and September 2, then the blackballing charges could not be sustained.

Tribunal’s findings

[62]              We have considered the evidence against each defendant separately and with respect to the two discrete meetings at which the blackballing occurred.

[63]           We are not satisfied that block voting, in the sense that only one vote for all the applicants would be taken, was contemplated by the committee.  The defendants deny this, and the obtaining of the ballot box by Mr Caskey before the 5 August meeting supports the conclusion that individual voting was intended.  We find that the purpose of the use of the voting apparatus was to ensure the secrecy of the ballot. 

[64]           While we are satisfied that the general tenor of comments made before the voting commenced was to the effect that the applicants should be rejected as members, we do not find that the evidence establishes that the defendants agreed in advance of either the meeting on August 5 or that of September 2, to vote to ensure that all prospective candidates for membership were rejected.

[65]           There is insufficient evidence to establish that there was pre-determination, in the sense that there was collusion prior to the meetings, but we are satisfied that the only logical and reasonable inference to draw from the fact that every applicant on each occasion failed, was that there was a common intention.  This common intention, shared by the majority of the committee, including the defendants, was to ensure that all the applicants failed.  This purpose was implemented by means of the blackballing procedure at each of the two meetings. 

[66]           In so finding, we accept the evidence by Mr Bishop, that it was said by Mr Caskey early at the 5 August meeting that “I will bloody well fix this”.  He was adamant that this comment was made.  We note at this point that Mr Bishop’s evidence on occasion was unclear.  In particular, his memory was shown under cross-examination to be poor.  He, for example, referred to a curtain being on the front of the voting apparatus, when it is evident there was no such curtain and he was of the view that the large table at which they sat was oval when the photographic evidence is that it is rectangular.  On key points, however, his evidence is supported by other witnesses.  His evidence on this matter was, for example, disputed by the defendants but it is supported by Ms Lawson, whom we found to be a well-organised witness for the informant.  And we also observe that Mr Needham’s reference to “rent-a–member” in his letter to the editor of the Daily News on 6 September 2002, indicates his thinking with respect to the September 2 ballot.

[67]           There were differing opinions as to the conduct of the committee during the voting process.  Mr Bishop and Ms Lawson stated that the voting on each occasion was conducted in a jovial and light-hearted manner and that there was no discussion of the merits of each candidate.  The defendants, in their evidence, each dispute this account; Ms Rowe and the defendants stated that the balloting process was responsibly conducted and that the process was taken seriously. 

[68]           We accept there were comments made as to the identity of particular individuals and what their relationships to other persons or family connections were, from time to time.  Significantly, we find there was no discussion at the meeting, prior to voting or during voting, of the merits of each applicant.  In particular, there was no reference to a person’s character or whether they had criminal convictions and whether they were undesirable as or perhaps barred from being members of the SRC.

[69]           Despite the fact that the voting apparatus that was used was designed for secrecy, we find it was apparent to other members of the committee how individual members voted.  We accept and find as a fact that Mr Bishop’s and Ms Lawson’s evidence, which was very clear on this point, was correct.  This was a consequence of the boxes in which the white and black balls were placed being open to view and it being possible for a member to see which colour balls were being taken from these boxes, or, if more than one ball was taken by one of the defendants, and held in the hand, the cluster contained only black balls.  This was so when the balls in each box were distinguished by colour, but was possible even when the balls were tipped back into either box without being divided by colour.

[70]           In relation to the number of black balls in each ballot, Mr Bishop and Ms Lawson gave evidence that Ms Rowe stated the numbers to be 7 – 2 after each vote.  Both Mr Bishop and Ms Lawson stated each applicant failed by 7 votes to 2. Each of the defendants dispute that Ms Rowe announced the results by reference to the number of balls.  They state she simply said “fail” and on one occasion “pass”.  The defendants and Ms Rowe gave evidence that there was some uncertainty at the 2 September vote as to whether a person had been unsuccessful.  They believed this person was Mr Jeffares, the then Mayor of Stratford.  They state that the voting with respect to Mr Jeffares was queried and checked and there was found to be more than 2 blackballs.  Mr Gilbert, for example, said the checking occurred because the secretary initially said “pass”.  On closer inspection of the voting apparatus it was established Mr Jeffares had in fact been unsuccessful in his application for membership.

[71]           We also have regard to Ms Rowe’s evidence that she could not be sure whether or not she did say 7 – 2 against on each occasion, even though her affidavit of 31 July 2006 states that she did not call out or take a record of the number of balls for and against.  She indicated that if that is what she said in 2006 that evidence was to be preferred because it was nearer to the actual events in question, than was her giving of oral evidence before this Tribunal.  Ms Rowe was not a convincing witness.  On key issues, she indicated to this Tribunal that she had no clear memory of the events.  She admitted during cross-examination that she could not remember if she had announced each vote or not.

[72]           We are not satisfied to the standard of the balance of probabilities, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, that the vote was 7 - 2 on every occasion and that each result was announced as 7 - 2 by Ms Rowe.  However, we are satisfied that there were a substantial number of votes that were 7 – 2.  We reach this conclusion having particular regard to the way in which the black balls were observed by Mr Bishop and Ms Lawson to be handled by the defendants, and the fact that the defendants were seen by these two witnesses to vote primarily with black balls.

[73]        &nb

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 329.ca, 673.ca

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: