Appeal In Bagby’s Case Is Dismissed

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 293, 2 March 1928, Page 6

Appeal In Bagby’s Case Is Dismissed

Judges Endorse Committee’s Action INTERESTING DECISION Press Association . WELLINGTON, Thursday. 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 in terminating the suspension of W. S. Bagby’s licence as a jockey on January 23, “Had the appellant, in this case the Auckland District Committee, a true perception of the functions exercised by the Licensing Committee in suspending and returning Bagby’s licence we do not think this appeal would have been lodged,” stated the judgment. The first of the grounds stated in support of the appeal, namely, that “W. S. Bagby is not a fit and proper person to be granted a jockey’s licence’/ was clearly the fruit of this misconception because the question before the Licensing Committee was not “is a licence to be granted to Bagby,” but “for how long are we to continue the suspension of Bagby’s licence we made on November 14, 1927?” Dip Into History The judgment stated that the facts in substanc© were that Bagby was granted a jockey’s licence as from August 1, 1927. In October, 1927, the Auckland District Committee recommended to the Licensing Committee that it should suspend Bagby’s licence because a charge of manslaughter was laid against him. The Licensing Committee, acting on such recommendation, on October 7, 1927, suspended Bagby’s licence pending the hearing of the manslaughter charge. Bagby was acquitted on the charge of manslaughter and convicted on an alternative charge of negligent driving and fined £ 100. The Auckland District Committee in view of such finding again recommended the Licensing Committee to suspend his licence. An Indefinite Suspension In pursuance of such recommendation the Licensing Committee on November 14, 1927, suspended Bagby’s licence, the term of suspension being left open. In December, 1927, application was made to the Auckland District Committee that it recommend the removal of Bagby’s suspension on certain undertakings as to employment. The Auckland District Committee did not. however, see fit to make such recommendations to the Licensing Committee with the result that on the matter coming before the Licensing Committee in December, 1927, tho committee decided to hold over the question until its January meeting. A further recommendation was subsequently received by the Licensing Committee from the Auckland District Committee that Bagby’s licence be suspended until July 31, 1928. On January 23, 1928, the Licensing Committee reconsidered the question and decided to terminate the suspension of Bagby’s licence conditionally.

Penalty Too Light?

“In our opinion the circumstances related showed that the final ques-

tion properly before the Licensing Committee on January 23 was the term for which the punishment imposed on Bagby on account of his conviction for negligent driving causing the death of a woman was to last and this is admitted by the appellant,” continues the judgment. “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 dissatisfaction with the period of suspension. Assuming such dissatisfaction a valid ground of appeal under rule 11, part xix., we cannot agree that the appeal on such grounds should be readily granted. “No More Than a Belief’" “The reasoning in support of such an appeal amounts to no more than the 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 to which appellant appeals. The constitution of the Licensing Committee, consisting as it does of the president and one member of each district committee, convinces us that any such theory is inconsistent with the purpose for which th e Licensing Committee was created and there is nothing whatever in the case or in the evidence to make us believe the decision appealed from was wrong. In our opinion the appeal fails. The order is that the appeal be dismissed.” The judgment was signed by Messrs. Harold Johnston, lan Duncan and O. S. Watkins, judges.