RACECOURSE EXCLUSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1937, Page 9

RACECOURSE EXCLUSION

A.J.C. WINS APPEAL PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION [BY CABLE—PBESS ASSN.—COPYBIGHT.] (Recd. February 2, S a.m.) LONDON, February 26. The Privy Council allowed the appeal of Stephen versus Naylor. SYDNEY, February 27. The Stephen-Naylor appeal to the Privy Council was one testing the powers of the Australian Jockey Club, whereof Sir Colin Stephen is chairman, to exclude certain persons from racecourses under its control. The Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1934 granted Rufe Naylor an injunction restraining the A.J.C. from preventing Naylor entering the Randwick course, and in March 1935, the Court granted Sir C. Stephen, leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision. In May 1936, the Privy Council dismissed a petition on behalf of Naylor to rescind the lerive to appeal. The Privy Council now allows Sir C. Stephen’s appeal.

TEXT OF JUDGMENT. (Received February 27, 12.30 p.m.) LONDON, February 26. The Privy Council allowed, with costs, the appeal of Sir Colin Stephen (Chairman of the Australian Jockey Club) against the majority decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, restraining the A.J.C, from preventing Rufus Naylor from entering the Randwick racecourse on race days, on payment of the prescribed charges l . Announcing the judgment, Mr Justice Roche said that the disqualification was well known and; legitimate. Indeed, it was -a necessary safeguard to secure the absence from a racecourse of persons found guilty of conduct gravely detrimental to the interests of racing. “Respondent was disqualified because he impeded, by lying, the course of necessary and proper’ inquiry, and he has suffered not because he consented to be bound by the rules, but because he permitted himself so to act as to bring his actions within their purview. The bylaw was not intended, and did not convey any reference to moral character. or qualities not connected with racing and racecourses. Jt meant no more and no less than it would if it were couched in less formal language, conferring the right to refuse the admission of those who, in popular language, are sometimes known as racecourse undesirables.”