JCA Committee to hear Exclusion Enquiry

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

41 minutes ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

Welcome back Driver X and Driver Y its been way way too long.

 

https://theinformant.co.nz/jca-quash-raceday-driving-exclusions-for-mr-x-and-mr-y/

JCA QUASH RACEDAY DRIVING EXCLUSIONS FOR MR X AND MR Y

Posted by Garrick Knight | Oct 26, 2018 | Harness, News

 

 

The Judicial Control Authority (JCA), on Friday afternoon, released their ruling on the exclusions of two drivers charged with race fixing by Police, referred to as ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’, and both are now free to resume driving in official races.
The two-man JCA panel, comprising Geoff Hall and Lynton Stevens QC, found that the Racecourse Inspector’s decisions dated September 27 and 28 to prevent both men from driving in totalisator races, failed to take in to account proportionality.
That is, whether the harm such measures would result in to Mr X and Mr Y were proportionate to the charges they faced.
Accordingly, Hall and Stevens quashed the Racecourse Inspector’s exclusion of both men.
“It follows that, pending the disposition of the criminal charges against open horsemen X and Y, or alternatively pending the making of any further order by the Judicial Committee, open horsemen X and Y can drive at any race meeting at which betting is available,” read the ruling.
Hall and Stevens were clear that, if the Police provided compelling evidence against X and Y regarding alleged race fixing, the exclusions could come back in to place.
“The decisions of the Racecourse Inspector were made on the basis of the fact open horsemen X and Y have been charged with criminal offences and the limited information contained in the Police summary of facts in each case.
“Disclosure by the Police under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 is yet to be provided.
“Accordingly, should further relevant information become available, or if there is a material change of circumstances, the Racing Integrity Unit is granted leave to bring the application for a ruling back before the Judicial Committee for further consideration.”
Both men, among numerous others, are due back in court on December 5 where it is expected Police will lodge a summary of evidence.
Mike Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, said his team “accept the JCA ruling”.
The RIU went to the JCA for clarification on the exclusion notices as an alternative to enduring a high court appeal by Mr X and Mr Y.

[LongOwner 217]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 5:56 PM, Fartoomuch said:

And of course you are never wrong on this subject despite being run over in various debates.

Your noblesse is fascinating. They are  innocent until proven guilty in court but can create havoc until that occurs and who cares about the greater industry and their participants.Certainly not you and many others The game is amateur as it is bar a few stables and this is a chance to be seen to above reproach to current and future investors and punters. Your posts do the latter a great disservice IMHO.

So Fartoomuch have you and your supporters any comment about todays decision?

[MisterEd 332]

5 hours ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

https://theinformant.co.nz/jca-quash-raceday-driving-exclusions-for-mr-x-and-mr-y/

JCA QUASH RACEDAY DRIVING EXCLUSIONS FOR MR X AND MR Y

Posted by Garrick Knight | Oct 26, 2018 | Harness, News

 

 

The Judicial Control Authority (JCA), on Friday afternoon, released their ruling on the exclusions of two drivers charged with race fixing by Police, referred to as ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’, and both are now free to resume driving in official races.
The two-man JCA panel, comprising Geoff Hall and Lynton Stevens QC, found that the Racecourse Inspector’s decisions dated September 27 and 28 to prevent both men from driving in totalisator races, failed to take in to account proportionality.
That is, whether the harm such measures would result in to Mr X and Mr Y were proportionate to the charges they faced.
Accordingly, Hall and Stevens quashed the Racecourse Inspector’s exclusion of both men.
“It follows that, pending the disposition of the criminal charges against open horsemen X and Y, or alternatively pending the making of any further order by the Judicial Committee, open horsemen X and Y can drive at any race meeting at which betting is available,” read the ruling.
Hall and Stevens were clear that, if the Police provided compelling evidence against X and Y regarding alleged race fixing, the exclusions could come back in to place.
“The decisions of the Racecourse Inspector were made on the basis of the fact open horsemen X and Y have been charged with criminal offences and the limited information contained in the Police summary of facts in each case.
“Disclosure by the Police under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 is yet to be provided.
“Accordingly, should further relevant information become available, or if there is a material change of circumstances, the Racing Integrity Unit is granted leave to bring the application for a ruling back before the Judicial Committee for further consideration.”
Both men, among numerous others, are due back in court on December 5 where it is expected Police will lodge a summary of evidence.
Mike Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, said his team “accept the JCA ruling”.
The RIU went to the JCA for clarification on the exclusion notices as an alternative to enduring a high court appeal by Mr X and Mr Y.

Can we change our industry name to Cirque Du NZ Harness Racing

[what a post 811]

3 hours ago, LongOwner said:

So Fartoomuch have you and your supporters any comment about todays decision?

Seemed a forgone conclusion if they were not able to present the evidence the police are going to produce at the court hearings.

 Clearly that was the basis for the decision if you go by the above article.  

Will be a long, drawn out, very expensive case for all those involved. 

Having drivers competing who are subject of ongoing race fixing allegations will do nothing for harness racings credibility, but  those involved rights obviously deserve consideration at this point. The RIU seem to be handling it well so far.

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

10 hours ago, LongOwner said:

So Fartoomuch have you and your supporters any comment about todays decision?

 

So your mates Blair and John are  back in action for now- is that enough or do i repeat what i said previously

 

Your noblesse is fascinating. They are  innocent until proven guilty in court but can create havoc until that occurs and who cares about the greater industry and their participants.Certainly not you and many others The game is amateur as it is bar a few stables and this is a chance to be seen to above reproach to current and future investors and punters. Your posts do the latter a great disservice IMHO.

A question for you smart arse, if they are found guilty of race fixing etc what will your response be

[50 win no. 1 106]

Racefixing?  Drugs? Lack of leadership from racing authorities,  reluctance to engage and inform PUNTERS!!!    Have not bet on harness racing since this emerged, when is it going to be resolved? The police can not proceed until the name suppression,  evidential disclosure to defence,  trial dates are set.  That is the legal right of any defendants. This could be another year.  Oh well back to betting on Cranbourne,  Randwick. instead. What a bloody shambles!!!!!

[LongOwner 217]

41 minutes ago, Fartoomuch said:

 

So your mates Blair and John are  back in action for now- is that enough or do i repeat what i said previously

 

Your noblesse is fascinating. They are  innocent until proven guilty in court but can create havoc until that occurs and who cares about the greater industry and their participants.Certainly not you and many others The game is amateur as it is bar a few stables and this is a chance to be seen to above reproach to current and future investors and punters. Your posts do the latter a great disservice IMHO.

A question for you smart arse, if they are found guilty of race fixing etc what will your response be

My view has always been innocent until proven . Many on this site have been applying the reverse which is not justice.

The removal of anyone’s ability to earn living while still innocent / on remand has to have a weight of evidence to be fair and in line with our justice ethos .

The report says  the JCA , on the evidence produced today’s , found it was disproportionate ( unfair ) to suspend them and remove them the right to earn a living.

That is all I have ever said - they are innocent until proven therefore should be driving .

The other view , in my view incorrect , is they all guilty now and they should be locked up without any justice.

So I will say justice has been seen and heard whatever the outcome .

 

 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

21 minutes ago, 50 win no. 1 said:

Racefixing?  Drugs? Lack of leadership from racing authorities,  reluctance to engage and inform PUNTERS!!!    Have not bet on harness racing since this emerged, when is it going to be resolved? The police can not proceed until the name suppression,  evidential disclosure to defence,  trial dates are set.  That is the legal right of any defendants. This could be another year.  Oh well back to betting on Cranbourne,  Randwick. instead. What a bloody shambles!!!!!

You join a growing list who are not prepared to part with your punting dollar until these matters are resolved. From the looks of it  December 5th is the next installment in terms of court appearances. The whole mess should be sorted by the end of next year one way or the other.

On a brighter note the racing at Randwick et al is a lot more spectacular at times and look at the money they are running for. Further, the expertise of their equivalent RIU is something to behold. Its tough but you take them on at your peril.

[50 win no. 1 106]

The main issue ,  in my view,  concerns integrity ,  both personal integrity and harness racing integrity.  The perception that racing is honest is absolutely vital. If you tell me , the punter,  that race results may have been predetermined,  than I feel like a mug.  In other words,  I am a sucker.  That's just being honest.  To the defendants,  stand up,  deny wrongdoing,  bugger the lawyers,  state and proclaim your innocence. Do interviews and fight for your personal integrity.  C.mon , give us, the punters some assurances.  Just my opinion.  Thank you...

[LongOwner 217]

By the way the gentleman on the panel who set down the decision is an Appeal Court Judge - assisted by a regular adjudicator who is a law acedemic - so a bit higher iq than me .

He basically said lack of evidence and no Police disclosure it is unfair to not allow them to earn a living.

If you recall the judge did question these prempted RIU suspensions- when setting bail conditions - as maybe injust but could not change them .

[50 win no. 1 106]

15 minutes ago, LongOwner said:

By the way the gentleman on the panel who set down the decision is an Appeal Court Judge - assisted by a regular adjudicator who is a law acedemic - so a bit higher iq than me .

He basically said lack of evidence and no Police disclosure it is unfair to not allow them to earn a living.

If you recall the judge did question these prempted RIU suspensions- when setting bail conditions - as maybe injust but could not change them .

Respect your view.  I also commend your concern about the legal process.  From a personal standpoint how could you spend money on any races these people are involved in?  We just have different reasoning.  Cheers

[LongOwner 217]

Been honest the last few weeks I have not enjoyed -

a)good horses driven upside down

b) sit and sprint lets pray drives

c) the driving bar lowered to average not as previously lifted to match the best 

Just my view so I am very happy but as I have always said I will stand by the judicial system - that is way above the RIU - decisions when made but until then they are all innocent.

Have you thought some or all of this is just a jealous vendetta.

[Lee270744 684]

Have you thought some or all of this is just a jealous vendetta ? 

You are 1000% correct LO it is a vendetta and it got a few on the periphery involved, unfortunately.

 

[Newmarket RC 209]

10 minutes ago, Lee270744 said:

Have you thought some or all of this is just a jealous vendetta ? 

You are 1000% correct LO it is a vendetta and it got a few on the periphery involved, unfortunately.

 

Given your ties with Team AS Lee  Iare you suggesting they were the target of the vendetta you are referring to or am I wide of the mark

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

11 hours ago, what a post said:

The RIU seem to be handling it well so far.

As in the handling the JCA decision well?

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

4 hours ago, 50 win no. 1 said:

Have not bet on harness racing since this emerged, when is it going to be resolved?

For almost 2 years or almost 2 months?

[what a post 811]

1 hour ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

As in the handling the JCA decision well?

I refer to giving the impression they view the publics perception of integrity in the sport as of paramount importance. While at the same time accepting processes protecting the rights of those accused have to be considered,and decisions made relating to that which are out of their hands need to be adhered too. Its a fine line they walk.

3 hours ago, LongOwner said:

.

Have you thought some or all of this is just a jealous vendetta.

 

3 hours ago, Lee270744 said:

Have you thought some or all of this is just a jealous vendetta ? 

You are 1000% correct LO it is a vendetta and it got a few on the periphery involved, unfortunately.

 

Everythings always jealousy and vendettas to some.Same old broken record.

Jealousy  does exist,so does injustice,cheating,dishonesty ,etc..but in this case why cant you just face it that the same rules and standards actually apply to everyone and that just because you are a well known name does not mean you are a protected species. 

[Lee270744 684]

3 hours ago, Newmarket said:

Given your ties with Team AS Lee  Iare you suggesting they were the target of the vendetta you are referring to or am I wide of the mark

No, they were not the target of the vendetta.

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

1 hour ago, what a post said:

While at the same time accepting processes protecting the rights of those accused have to be considered,and decisions made relating to that which are out of their hands need to be adhered too.

lol it took them almost 2 months to seek clarification.

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

51 minutes ago, Lee270744 said:

No, they were not the target of the vendetta.

Pensioner the subject of an ex employee vendetta.

[LongOwner 217]

4 hours ago, what a post said:

I refer to giving the impression they view the publics perception of integrity in the sport as of paramount importance. While at the same time accepting processes protecting the rights of those accused have to be considered,and decisions made relating to that which are out of their hands need to be adhered too. Its a fine line they walk.

 

Everythings always jealousy and vendettas to some.Same old broken record.

Jealousy  does exist,so does injustice,cheating,dishonesty ,etc..but in this case why cant you just face it that the same rules and standards actually apply to everyone and that just because you are a well known name does not mean you are a protected species. 

Your reply reads like the vendetta - will not accept a fair ruling made by very experienced people who understand law .

This is the second judge to question the RIU and Police in there handling of this case(s).!

[what a post 811]

 

5 hours ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

lol it took them almost 2 months to seek clarification.

Not sure what you mean. According to the article the RIU only sought clarification to pre empt an appeal to the high court. Made perfect sense to me.  Their hand was forced.  The decision of the jca was always going to be in favour of mr x and y without the disclosure of the police evidence available to the jca.

 

2 hours ago, LongOwner said:

Your reply reads like the vendetta - will not accept a fair ruling made by very experienced people who understand law .

 

.That's not what I have said about latest jca ruling.   Your missing a lot if you cant get past thinking everyone is jealous or has a vendetta.

[Kotare_Hunter 748]

1 hour ago, what a post said:

Not sure what you mean. According to the article the RIU only sought clarification to pre empt an appeal to the high court. Made perfect sense to me.  Their hand was forced.  The decision of the jca was always going to be in favour of mr x and y without the disclosure of the police evidence available to the jca.

Had they sought clarification 2 months ago instead of rushing in they would not look as inept as to do now.

[what a post 811]

1 hour ago, Kotare_Hunter said:

Had they sought clarification 2 months ago instead of rushing in they would not look as inept as to do now.

Its all subjective. I think they would have looked inept(as you put it) had they not taken the action they did 2 months ago.

Besides,why did it take 2 months for those charged to seek clarification..  If they were that confident then why the delay.

[Stables 577]

Lawyers for their defence took time to prepare the appropriate documents for the submissions to the RIU and the RIU took its Time responding to their submissions. I can assure you there was no delay from the defendants because of doubts about their innocence.