SUSPENSION OF W. S. BAGBY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 131, 2 March 1928, Page 3

SUSPENSION OF W. S. BAGBY

APPEAL AGAINST TERMINATION FAILS THE REAL QUESTION Judgment Ims been given in the matter of the appeal of the Auckland District Racing Committee against tho decision of tho Licensing Committee of tho New Zealand Racing Conference in terminating the suspension of W. S. Bagbv’s license as a jockey on January 23, 1928. In dismissing the appeal, the judges, Messrs. Harold Johnston, lan Dunean and C. S. Watkins, state:— "Had the appellant in this ease a true conception of the functions exercised by . the Licensing Committee in suspending and returning .Bagby’s license, we do not think this appeal would have been lodged. The appeal is expressed to be “against tin: determination of tlio Licensing Committee of the. New Zealand Racing Conference sifting at. Wellington on January’ 23, 1928, whereby Walter Scott Bagby was granted a jockey’s license.’ In fact, no such determination was made by the Licensing Committee on that date, and the appellant . has misconceived the purpose of the meeting of the Licensing Committee referred to and and the purport o’ its order. Grounds of the Appeal. "Tlie first of the grounds stated in support; of t.bo appeal, namely, that ‘W. S. .Bagby is not u fit and proper person to be granted a. jockey’s- license.’ _ is clearly the fruit of this misconception, because the question before the Licensing Committee was not ’.is a license Io be granted to Bagby?’ but “For how long are we to continue the suspension of Bagby’s license we made on November 14, 1.927?’ Two ditl'erent questions, the answer to the second, in our opinion. not necessarily involving the answer to tho first, and depending on the nature of the offence for which the Licensing Committee imposed suspension, and in our opinion more properly to be answered by the bodv imposing the penalty, namely, the Licensing Committee, than the Auckland District Committee. "The facts are in substance as follow: Bagby was granted a. jockey’s license as from August 1, 1927. because, it must be assumed, lie was a tit and proper person to bold such a license. That license was issued by tho LicensMig Committee on the recommendation of the. Auckland District Committee. Ho eontinue.d to holil his license till October 7. 1927, and his qualification to do so must be assumed to have continued up to (hat date. Tn October. 1927. the Auckland District Committee recommended to the Licensing Committee that it should suspend Bagbv’s license, because a charge’ of mnn-slau-hler was laid against him. The Incensing Committee, acting on such recommendation on October .7, 1927, suspended Bagby’s license pending the hearing of the manslaughter charge. ‘Suspension,’ not ‘Cancellation.’ “Inasmuch as the real question relates io the degree of punishment inilieted. or the term for which Bagby was debarred from using his license, it is convenient at this point to break off tho narrative and point out (hat the penalty recommended by the Auckland District Committee. and imposed bv tho Licensing Committee was ‘suspension’ not ‘cancelloHon* or 'withdrawal’ —alternative penalties expressly placed in tho hands of the Licensing Committee bv the rule under which they acted (Rulo 4, Part XIX), and that the term of suspension was ‘Pending hearing of the manslaughter oh’iroc.’ Baebv was annarontlv neouifted on the charge of manslaughter, and convicted on an alternative charge of no"’i ,r '‘‘nf jb-i.-iny. nnd fined .fine and the Auckland District Committee, in '■iew of su-li finding, ncain recommended the Licensing Commit lee to suspend his licens.-*. Tn nn rsn cn-.n o F sncli ver-onl-riendation the T.iconsing Committee on November 14, 1927, suspended. Baoby’s license, tho term of suspension being left open. Conditional Termination. “Tn Decombo, 1027. nunliontion was made to the Auckland District Committee that they recommend the removal of Bagby’s suspension on certain undertakings ns to employment. . The Auckland District Committee did not,

however, see fit to make such recommendations Io the, Licensing Committee, with the result: that on the matter coming before the Licensing Committee in December. 1927, that eomiuil lee decided io hold over tho question until its January meeting. A further recommendation was subsequently received by the Licensing Committee from the Auckland Dist rict Commit toe t hat Bagby’s license lie suspended until July 31, 1928. On January’ 23, 1928. tho Licensing Committee reconsidered the question and decided to terminate the suspension of Bagby’s license conditionally. Appellant's Complaint. “In our opinion, the circumstances related show that tho final question properly before tho Licensing Committee on January 23, 1928, was the term for which the punishment imposed on Bogby on account of his conviction for negligent driving causing the death of a woman was to Itist. And this is admitted by tho appellant. Appellant’s complaint really is that the penalty imposed was too light ; but appellant recommended suspension, and suspension was imposed. Appellant's complaint is thus reduced to dissatisfaution with the period of suspension. Assuming such dissatisfaction a valid ground of appeal under rule 11, part NIX, we cannot agree that an appeal on such grounds should be readily granted. The reasoning in support of such an appeal amounts to no more than (he assertion of a belief on the part of the appellant, that it is better able to judge on the penalty to be imposed in such circumstances than the body from which appellant appeals. Appeal Dismissed. “The constitution of the Licensing Committee, consisting as it does of the president and one member of each district committee, convinces us that any sucli theory is' inconsistent with the purpose for. which the Licensing Committee was created, and there is nothing whatever in the case or in the evuience to make us believe the decision appealed from was wrong. In our opinion tho appeal fails. Tho order is that the appeal be dismissed.”