UNUSUAL ACTION.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 31 March 1931, Page 12

UNUSUAL ACTION.

THE CASE OF K. VOITRE. A few weeks ago, at the meeting of the Rangitikei Racing Club, the Judicial Committee suspended the lightweight rider, K. Voitre, for a month for careless riding, but without any appeal being lodged the Wanganui District Committee reversed the decision of the club officials. The action of the Wanganui District Committee has aroused a good deal of discussion, and the Wellington writer, “Rangitira,” referred to the case as follows: In reversing the decision of the Rangitikei Racing Club’s Judicial Committee that K. Voitre should be suspended for one month for careless riding, the Wanganui District Committee acted within the powers conferred on it by the Rules of Racing; but it invoked a power that had not previously been exercised, at least within recent years, and the repercussion will probably be more extensive than what has yet been felt. The committee has, in effect, brc.ken what may be termed one of the unwritten rules of racing, that is, that the constituent parts of the Dominion’s racing judiciary do not deliberately counter the decisions of each other unless they are particularly asked to do so by way of case stated on appeal. No appeal was made to the Wanganui District Committee by any party concerned. The action was taken under Rule 13, Part 30, of the Rules of Racing, which states that a district committee “may (whether there be an appeal or not) either approve of the decision of the stewards or committee (of a club) in whole or in part, or vary or reverse the same. . . It shall be the duty of all persons concerned to comply with and give effect to the der cision of the District Committee, which, however, shall be subject to appeal to the Conference.” Had there been an appeal such action as that of the Wanganui Committee in reversing the decision of the Rangitikei Racing Club’s Judicial Committee would have required no comment. It is a much different matter, however, when a committee, specially convened not later than 14 days after receipt of particulars, as enjoined by the Rules of Racing (Rule 10, Part 30), deliberately makes another finding on apparently the same facts as the club had before it. Had the committee, not questioning the guilt, simply varied the sentence, as, for example, if it had’reduced the sentence to two weeks, which would have had the same practical effect as reversal, it would not have acted extraordinarily, nor offended against any unwritten law. Such variations are occasionally made. Instead, it said, in effect, that the Rangitikei Club’s Judicial Committee was wholly wrong in its finding, and that its members erroneously interpreted the evidence placed before them. This amounts to nothing less than severe public reprimand of the officials of one racing unit by the officials of another. It is necessary to distinguish between a case where an appeal is lodged ana one where there is no appeal. When an appeal is made new facts are usually presented, and any amended decision is based on a new set of facts, not on the old. When there is no appeal, however, no new facts can be placed before the examining body, and any amended decision is based only on a new interpretation of the old set of facts. Such may warrant a diminution or extension of punishment, but rarely can it warrant a total reversal of the finding. It is this latter action that the Wanganui Committee has taken. The Wanganui Committee has apparently not feared any reprimand from the Racing Conference itself, and it is probable that it feels it could justify its action should it be called on to do so. If it is in such a position it is to be commended on the unusual and extraordinary step it has taken. K. Voitre’s failure to appeal within the fortnight allowed might suggest that the committee would have difficulty in justifying itself, but, of course, it must be remembered in this connection that had the case been reopened on appeal the sentence might have been increased instead of lightened or removed, for the Wanganui Committee only recently doubled a punishment, and the appeal might purposely not have been made lest such be the result. Public racing opinion is concerned, nevertheless, about the Wanganui District Committee’s action, and it will not be satisfied till some explanation, beyond the bare statement of reversal, is made why the Rangitikei verdict was deliberately set aside.