1 / 18

protest upheld racing, the stewards and vcat

Unique position of Stewards. Stewards

Mia_John
Download Presentation

protest upheld racing, the stewards and vcat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. “Protest Upheld – Racing, the Stewards and VCAT” Dayle Brown General Manager Integrity

    3. Disciplinary process Australian Rules of Racing dealt with historically by Stewards’ inquiries Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board created 2004 RADB originating jurisdiction for serious offences How does the RADB operate?

    4. Disciplinary process Racing Appeals Tribunal established in 1984 – appellate function Integrity Assurance in the Victorian Racing Industry Report 2008 , Judge Lewis identified the RADB had been “universally praised during this consultation process.”

    5. Powers – Rules of Racing Nikolic inquiry AR 8(b) “To require and obtain production and take possession of any mobile phone, computers, electronic devices, books, documents and records, including any telephone or financial records relating to any meeting or enquiry.”

    6. Powers – Rules of Racing Performance of their investigative role, Stewards must articulate the nature and scope of inquiry. RADB connection “between direction to hand over phone and the enquiry…” Stewards may exercise power conferred by AR 8(b) only in relation to a meeting or enquiry.

    7. Powers – Rules of Racing Power provided in AR 8(b) can be used as long as the direction has a direct connection to the inquiry. Ross v Costigan (1982) 41 ALR “establish a relevant connection between certain facts and the subject matter of the inquiry.”

    8. Common law – power over strangers Stephen v Naylor (1937) “Purview of the rules” Lord Roche “….he has to suffer 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.”

    9. Common law – power over strangers Racing Appeals Tribunal followed the principal set out in Stephen v Naylor was followed in: Victoria – Mr Dick Merton New South Wales – Dr Tim Roberts

    10. Common law – power over strangers The principle has also received judicial support in: Caddigan v Grigg [1958] NZLR 709 In the matter of Queensland Principal Club and Kooralbyn Picnic Race Day Supreme Court of Queensland (8/6/98 9900102) Zucal; ex parte Harper [2005] WASCA 76

    11. Common law – power over strangers Clements inquiry Stewards directed Clements to produce his mobile phone records in accordance with AR 8(b). Clements declined and he was charged with failing to comply with a direction of the Stewards

    12. Common law – power over strangers The case was heard by the RADB in the first instance and they found: Clements came within the “purview of the rules” The direction of the Stewards was valid as….”the direction to produce the telephone records was related to an enquiry as the requisite link ……was established.”

    13. Common law – power over strangers RADB stated: “…question of whether unlicensed persons are bound by the Rules is one of degree and fact depending on particular circumstances ….by their actions have brought themselves within the purview of the Rules.” Warning off – associated Rules of Racing

    14. VCAT – Clements Clements lodged an appeal with VCAT stating the Stewards did not have jurisdiction because he had not agreed to be bound by the Rules of Racing. VCAT found that Clements did not agree to be bound by the Rules of Racing either expressly or by implication. The Racing Act 1958 does not give the rules statutory force.

    15. VCAT - Clements VCAT stated further: “In the extract quoted by the Privy Council effectively treated the Rules as if they had statutory force such that they applied to anybody who came within their terms.”

    16. VCAT - Clements Other cases relied upon were distinguishable on facts and an alternative jurisdictional base Principle of legality Regulatory gap

    17. Summary RADB model disciplinary process VCAT decision addressing legislative reform powers over strangers

    18. THE END

More Related