While this is getting away from the original topic of this thread which those who know me know it's something I don't particularly care for I feel a little obliged to offer some clarity to those who are getting a little lost with some of the terms and how they relate.
Jason Lee was charged under rule 149a which states...
149. (1) A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.
Although some posts suggest that this rule is poorly or sloppily constructed, the wording of this rule is to be found in the rulebooks of nearly all racing jurisdictions worldwide. It is there because it specifies what a driver SHALL do. What a driver doesn't do or whyso is not part of this rule.
The term MENS REA is used throughout this thread and its relationship to this particular rule.
Mens Rea means...
mens rea (menz ray-ah) n. Latin for a guilty mind, or criminal intent in committing the act
Further..
Mens Rea
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.
As the majority of rules governing racing (excepting serious racing offences) are based on the principles of Strict Liability, the principles of Mens Rea do not apply.
So from this, IMO stewards appear to have charged and convicted Mr Lee for what he has not done rather than what he has done.
This rule is clearly one of strict liability as it does not require (nowhere in its wording) to know his reasoning for not doing what he shall do.
The rulebooks of most racing jurisdictions are full of Strict Liability. Mens Rea or the mental considerations, intent nor reasoning need not be proven.
The rule is akin to those governing prohibited substances along with.
The stewards do not have to prove any intent. They just have to be satisfied that the analyst detected an illegal substance in the horse's sample. How or why is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote