THE ROWLEY CASE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19158, 15 November 1927, Page 11

THE ROWLEY CASE.

TO THE SDITOK 01 THE PBESS % Sir,—l hare read the letter of Mr George Gould, the chairman 0 f the Canterbury Jockey Club, referring to the decision in ibis case. The functions, rights, and duties of Judicial Committees arc of public importance end of particular importance to the persons coming under the jurisdiction of such committees. On account of the importance of the question X desire to refer shortly to Mr Gould's letter expressing, of course, my personal opinion only, and in no way binding the other .Appeal Judges. The case has been concluded, but the question still remains as to the correct principles to be applied by Judicial Committees in futuro cases. The irregularities of the Judicial Committee of the Canterbury Jockey Club referred to in the judgment were sufficient upon, which to found the judgment, but were not exhaustive. Mr Gould claims that the Judicial Committee of a Racing Club is a tribunal of equity, whatever precisely such a tribunal may he, regulating its proceedings apparently without method, limit, or principle. J agree that the procedure of such a body need not be fixed. It possesses, however, wide powers and ean, and should, in proper cases inflict heavy punishments. The llules of Racing are silent as to the procedure to bo followed by Judicial Committees. In the absence of an express rule of Racing on the subject, in my opinion Judicial Committees must follow substantially the ordinary procedure of the Courts of the land—that is to say, that persons charged before Judicial Committees must be informed of the precise offence alleged against them.and must be present while the whole of the evidence is given against them. There would be a danger, if it were competent for a Judicial Committee to proceed in the absence of an accused person, and then to say afterwards, as Mr Gould says now, that the evidence which was so taken in the absence of the accused was unimportant.

The advantage of a Judicial Committee approaching its cases in a logical and orderly fashion can easily be demonstrated. Mr Gould was chairman of the Judicial Committee of the Canterbury Jockey Club which on Monday, November 7th, unanimously convicted the owner of Rowley of a corrupt practice. Mr Gould was chairman also of the District Committee which on tho following day, November Bth, on the same evidence, unanimously acquitted tho owner of Rowley of the same offeuco by allowing his appeal against his conviction the day before. A member of the District Committee gave evidence as a witness before tho Judicial Committee on November 7th. He saw tho finish of the race, but stated that he was unable to say that the horse was "pulled" or that it was riot/ ridden to win. This member of the District Committee was a party to its unanimons decision convicting the jockey and trainer of the offences charged against each of thorn.

Mr Gould, therefore, on two consecutive days on the same evidence, was a party to two unanimous decisions, each flatly contradicting the other.

The member of tho District Committee above referred to must, in that capacity, have rejected his own evidence given before the Judicial Committee, and gone further as a Judge than he did as a witness. The application of simple legal principles' to racing enquiries must have avoided such inconsistencies as. these.

In my opinion tho Judicial Committee might well have recognised that the positions of the persons charged before it were not the same. The owner of tho horse was present throughout, was able to defend himself, and did defend himself with considerable ability. The trainer had previous experience of such 'enquiries and put his view before the Judicial Committee on the first day, when he was present. Both the owner and the trainer, however, contended before the District' Committeo that when present before the Judicial Committee they did not know that they were charged with any racing offence. Bagby contended that he first knew of the charge made against him when he was summoned before the Judicial Committee to receive the annountement of his conviction and punishment. Parker's position was altogether different. He was an apprentice, apparently not more than 16 years of age, of no great mentality or education and was no doubt flustered by his sudden arraignment for the first time before a Racing Tribunal. The Judicial Committee, in my opinion, owed a special duty to such a person as Parker. He should clearly have understood that he was charged with an offence, the exact nature of the offence should have been explained to him, and the Judicial Committee should have encouraged and assisted him to place everything that he could say for himself before the Committeo for its consideration. The Record of the proceedings shows that the Judicial Committee apparently did not even inform Parker of his conviction and punishment. Parker must have ascertained the result in some other way. The guilt or innocence of the trainer depended on the inference that the Judicial Committee drew from the evidence before it. There was no direct evidence implicating Bagby. The steward who sat at tho meeting on November 7th did not hear or see Bagby, but Bagby's statement was read over to him. This steward therefore lacked the most important material for coming to a correct decision in Bagby's case, namely, tho appearance and demeanour of Bagby when making his statement. Racing enquiries throughout the country have generally been conducted in the past on the broad principles which govern proceedings in Courts of Law. No departure from these principles I hope and feel sure will ever be sanctioned by a decision of the Judges of the Conference. —Yours faithfully, A. E. DONNELLY.

TO THE EDITOR 07 THE PBES3. Sir, —I have read the judgment of the Conference, and it is a very good piece of English composition, but what I want to know is—were the jockey and trainer guilty or not guilty? About this it savs never a word.—Yours, etc., INTERESTED.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRESS. Sir, —The proceedings in this case, on examination, reveal some most extraordinary features. On Monday, 7th, the C.J.C. finds the owner, trainer, and jockey guilty of malpractice. The latter appeal, and with unusual celerity the Canterbury District Committee sits on Tuesday, absolves the owner, but holds the 'trainer and jockey to blame for deliheratlcy "pulling" the horse Eowley. The jockey and trainer appeal against the decision of the District Committee, and three judges, to wit, Messrs Donnelly, Hassall, and Lowry, deliver themseives of a wordy and pompous judgment—l won't call it a smoke-screen —which makes no reference to the "pulling" of a horse or the verdict of the District Committee which was the subject of the appeal, but deals exclusively with technicalities regarding the original C.J.C. proceedings which at that stage had nothing to do with the case. The appeal is allowed, and on Saturday the owner, trainer, jockey, and Eowley himself are all going strong and "everything in the garden is lovely." It is a funny world—especially the racing world. —Yours, etc., PUNTEB.