Court Asked To Upset Racing Inquiry Decision

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28572, 29 April 1958, Page 14

Court Asked To Upset Racing Inquiry Decision

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, April 28. Whether the Racing Conference can disqualify a person who has never undertaken to keep its rules or accept its judgment is a question being asked of .the Supreme Court. The case, which arises from the alleged “dummy” ownership of the horse Gulliver, came before the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) in Wellington today. The plaintiff is Harold Mervyn. Caddigan, a farmer, of Waihi, for whom Mr W. E. Leicester appeared, and defendant is the executive committee of the Racing Conference, represented by Mr E. D. Blundell.

The facts set out in Caddigan’s statement of claim, which were not disputed, were that last June the committee held an inquiry to hear three charges against him. These were:—That he aided and abetted Joseph Francis Steiner to supply the conference with false information for the purpose of Steiner becoming the registered owner of GuUiver, Steiner knowing that he would be merely Caddigan’s agent and that Caddigan would be the true owner: that on December 8, 1953, he supplied false information to a racecourse inspector that he was not the owner of the horse, and that he aided and abetted Steiner to start Gulliver in 14 races when the horse was ineligible because Caddigan was prohibited by the Rules of Racing to start a horse. Caddigan submitted, through counsel at the opening of the inquiry, that he had not entered any contract with the Racing Conference to be bound by its Rules of Racing, nor had he consented to be tried by the executive committee.

The committee ruled against submission and, the inquiry proceeding, the committee found him guilty and disqualified him for five years. Caddigan sought from the Supreme Court a declaration that the disqualification was null and void on the ground that the committee had neither jurisdiction nor power to hear and determine the charges. The defence denied that the committee had no jurisdiction, and claimed that, by using Steiner’s services for training and racing Gulliver under the Rules of Racing, Caddigan consented to be bound by the rules, and that, in breaking the rules, he voluntarily brought himself within their purview.

Mr Leicester said Caddigan had been convicted of bookmaking Although he had not been convicted at the date when he was alleged to have broken the Rules of Racing, there was evidence that he was carrying on a bookmaking business then.

The Rules of Racing were not created by Statute but were the rules of a domestic tribunal within the sport, so there must be definite limitations to them, said Mr Leicester. They dealt with people who submitted themselves to the rules or who admitted aiding and abetting breaches by those who had submitted themselves to the rules. The committee decided it had jurisdiction over Caddigan before it had evidence that he was an owner. To bring him under its jurisdiction it resorted to its juris-

diction. Where statutory authority was lacking, the power of a domestic tribunal to deal with charges must be founded on a contract or consent to jurisdiction. “If a man stopped an owner in the street and gave him £5O to pull his horse I cannot see that he would be within the jurisdiction of the committee as aiding and abetting the offence of the owner,” said Mr Leicester. Mr Leicester said he made no complaint with the conduct of the inquiry apart from the matter raised in Court. Mr Blundell said the Racing Conference was merely an association of clubs for the control and development of racing. A number of people, such as jockeys and trainers, specifically asked to be governed by the rules, which were only a code for the administration of the sport * When the conference’s committee imposed disqualification on other people the effect, apart from any social stigma, was simply to tell them that they could not enter a course or own or train a horse under the conference’s rules. That was a penalty within the sport imposed by the sport. Before the committee did such a thing it gave the person concerned an opportunity to be heard. His Honour asked where the line was drawn. Was a man to be liable to disqualification by the committee, even if he had decided to have nothing to do with racing? Mr Blundell said the point at which a person came within the conference’s jurisdiction was when the conference noticed that the person had done something of which it disapproved. After hearing legal argument, his Honour reserved his decision