TOO MUCH LAW?

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 205, 18 November 1927, Page 7

TOO MUCH LAW?

THE ROWLEY CASE A SOUTHERN VIEW WHY NOT A REHEARING? Northerners present at the C.J.C. meeting, on the opening day, returned home full of what is now becon>e famous as the Rowley case. In connection with the affair, “Vedette,” who witnessed the incident, writes as follows in the “Evening: Post”: What is now' well known as the Rowley case has excited so much interest that it must go on record as one of the Turf surprises of the past decade. That it all ended in an anticlimax provided yet further cause for comment and much thought. In the appeals to the conference judges the case as regards Rowley and the running of Rowley was left severely alone in the finding. The legal aspects of the whole matter were the points at issue. Procedure, or the lack of it, and alleged irregularities in the method of prosecution w'ere the reasons advanced for the quashing of the original sentences of the stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club, as applied to the trainer and jockey. THE HISTORY It is interesting to go back and trace the case from its beginning. The stewards of the club, who actually viewed the running of Rowley in the Riccarton Handicap, disqualified M.r. McDonald and Bagby for two years, and suspended Parker for 12 months under the corrupt practice rule in connection with the running and riding of that horse. On appeal to the District Committee, some of whom saw the race, that body did not find evidence to implicate Mr. McDonald, but stated: “Rowley was deliberately pulled in the Riccarton Handicap, and aso found that the trainer, R. S. Bagby, was responsibe for the instructions issued to the jockey, A. R. Parker. As there was no evidence to directly implicate the owner, Mr. A. McDonald, and no evidence that he had backed any other horse in the the committee exculpated Mr. “McDonald, but dismissed the appeals of the trainer and jockey.” The next stage was the further appeal of Bagby and Parker to judges appointed by the Racing Conference. These three gentlemen made the following statement: 'We have considered the evidence given before the meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Canterbury Jockey Club, held at Riccarton Racecourse on Saturday, November 5, 1927, and continued on Monday, November 7, 1927, and the evidence given before the meeting of the Canterbury District Committee on November 8. 1927. In addition we have had before us at the hearing of the appeals the two appellants, the chairman of the Judicial and District Committees, and the stipendiary stewards. We are unanimously of the opinion that the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Canterbury Jockey Club were irregular in important particulars. The appellants were not present at the adjourned meeting of the Judicial Committee held on November 7, 1927. There was present at the adjourned meeting a steward who had not attended the meeting on November 5, 1927, when the appellants made their statements to the Judicial Committee. "We are of opinion that any person charged with an offence against the Rules of Racing must have an opportunity, if he so desires, to be present throughout the w'hole inquiry into his conduct. The whole of the evidence tendered to and considered by the committee holding the inquiry must be given in the presence of the person charged, so that he may, if he is able, refute or explain that evidence. At the meeting on November 5, 1927, the appellants were informed that the stewards were not satisfied with Rowley’s running in the Riccarton Handicap. In our opinion the person charged with an offence against the Rules of Racing before a meeting of judicial stewards should be promptly and plainly informed of the precise offence he has to meet. For the above reasons we allow the appeals of' Bagby and Parker.” Subsequently Mr. George Gould, chairman of the Canterbury Jockey Club, made the following statement: Lest it should be thought that the alleged irregularities of the Canterbury Jockey Club procedure upon which the conference judges allowed the appeals of R. S. Bagby and A. R. Parker involved any injustice to the defendants, I feel constrained to make a few observations:— (1) The judicial committee of a racing club is a tribunal of equity, acting in pursuance of the Rules of Racing, and is not a Court of Law. (2) With one unimportant exception, the whole of the evidence was taken in the presence of all the defendants, and that one exception in the presence of the owner. The whole of the evidence was taken down word for word by shorthand and was typewritten, and the defendants had the fullest opportunity of reading, explaining, or refuting it at the meeting of the District Committee. (3) The presence of the steward on November 7 who had been absent on the sth in no way prejudiced the case of the defendants, as the hearing on the 7th was opened by the reading of the whole of the evidence taken on the stli. On both Saturday and Monday the stewards were a quorum of a constitutionally appointed Judicial Committee. The Canterbury Jockey Club not being answerable for the result, accepts the verdict of the conference judges without demur. All this may mean much or little to the layman, but does it not suggest too much law? Does it not supply cogent argument for the introduction of a stipendiary steward system which would enable cases of this kind to be handled by experts, and experts alone? The point exercising the minds of most people, however, who have followed the case is the action of the three judges. In the face of the opinions of the stewards who found the persons concerned guilty of corrupt practice, and of the further opinion of the District Committee that Rowley was deliberately pulled in the Riccarton Handicap, these-judges, because of the irregular procedure of the prosecution, decided in favour of the defendants! The judges did not express an opinion regarding the actual points at issue: all they concerned themselves with was the matter of procedure. Under all these circumstances the question arises: Why was not the case referred back to the stewards for a ; rehearing?