JOCKEY’S SUSPENSION REMOVED

Evening Star, Issue 19805, 2 March 1928, Page 4

JOCKEY’S SUSPENSION REMOVED

APPEAL FROM DECISION FAILS THE CASE OF W. S. BAGBY [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, March 1. The New Zealand Racing Conference has given judgment in the matter of the appeal by the Auckland District Committee against the decision of the Licensing Committee of the New Zealand Racing Conference m terminating the suspension of W. S. Ragby’s license as a jockey on January 23, 1928. “If the appellant - in this case, the Auckland District Committee, had a true perception 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,” stated the judgment. “The appeal is expressed to be ‘against the determination of the Licensing Committee of the New Zealand Racing Conference sitting at Wellington on the 23rd day of January, 1028, whereby Walter Scott Ragby was granted a jockey’s license.’ In fact, no such determination was made 1 y l’ o Licensing Committee on that date, and f o appellant has misconceived, the purpose of the meeting of the Licensing Committee referred to and the purport of its order The first of t\ grounds stated in support of the appeal—namely, that ‘W. S. Ragby is not a fit and proper person to bo granted a jockey's license’ is clearly the fruit of this misconception, because the question before the Licensing Committee was not ‘ Is a license to be granted to Ragby? ’ but ‘ For how Jong are we to continue the suspension of Bagby’s license which wo made on November 11, 1927'’’ These aro different questions, the answer to the second, in our opinion, not necessarily involving the answer to the 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 tho body imposing the penalty—namely, tho Licensing Committee, than tho Auckland District Committee. “The facts are in substance as follow:—Bagby was granted a. jockey’s license as from August ], 1927, because fit must be assumed) he was a fit and proper person to hold such a license. That license was issued by the Licensing Committee on the recommendation of tho Auckland District Commit to. Ho continued to hold his license till October 7, 1927, and his disqualification to do so must be assumed to have continued up to that date. In October, 1927,'the Auckland District Committee recommended to the Licensing Committee that it should suspend Bagby’s license because a charge of manslaughter was laid against him. The Licensing Committee, acting on such recommendation, on October 7, 1927, suspended Bagby’s license pending the hearing of the manslaughter charge. “Inasmuch as the real questo relates to the degree of punishment inflicted, or for the term for which Bagby was deba,rred from using bis license, ic is convenient at this point to break off the narrative and ipoint out that tho penalty recommended by the ..uckland District Committee and imposed by tho Licensing Committee was ‘suspension,’ not ‘ cancellation ’ or ‘withdrawal,’ alternative penalties expressly placed in the bands of the Licensing Committee by the rule under which it acted (rule 4, part XIX.), and that tho term of the suspension was ‘pending tho hearing of the manslaughter charge.’ Bagby was apparently acquitted on tho charge of manslaughter, and convicted on an alternative charge of negligent driving and fined £IOO, and the. Auckland District Committee, in view of such finding, again recommended the Licensing Committee to suspend bis license. In pursuance of such recommendation the Licensing Committee, on November 14, 1927, suspended Rigby’s license, tho term of suspension being left open.

“In December, .11)27, application was made to the Auckland District Committee that it should recommend tbo removal of Bagby’s suspension on certain undertakings as to employment. The. Auckland District Committee did not, however, sec. fit to make such recommendations to the Licensing Committee. with the result that on the matter coming before the Licensing Committee in December, 1927, 1 l.c committee decided, to hold over the question until ite January meeting.

“A further recommend at ion was subsequently received by the Licensing Committee from the Auckland Distent Committee that Bagby’s license be suspended until July 31, 19/8. The Incensing Committee reconsidered the question and decided to terminate tbo suspension of Bagby’s license conditionally.

“In our opinion tbo arcjiasianc. s related show that the final qu<sti.in properly before the Licensing Committee on January 23, 1928, was the let m for which the punishment, imposed on Bflgby on account of his conviction for negligent driving causing the death i f a woman was to last, and this is admitted by the appellant. Tho appellant’s complaint is thus reduced to dissatisfaction with the period of suspension. Assuming such dissatisfaction, a valid ground of appeal under rule 11, part XIX., w© cannot agree that an appeal on such grounds should readily no granted. The reasoning in support of such an appeal amounts 7. no more than the assertion of a belief on the part of the appellant that it is hotter able to judge of the penalty to be imposed in such circumstances than the body from which tho appellant appeals. The constitution of the Licensing f'omniittec, consisting as it does of tbo president and one member of each District Committee, convinces us that any such theory is inconsistent with the purpose for which the Licensing Committee was created, and there is nothing whatever in the case or in the evidence to make us believe that the decision appealed from was wrong. “ In our opinion the appeal fails. Tho order is that the appeal he dismissed.” • —(Signed) Harold Johnston, lan Duncan, 0, S. Watkins (judges).