Was that post for me or someone else? I'm not confused about this topic.... :(
Printable View
Was that post for me or someone else? I'm not confused about this topic.... :(
Flashing. Hi
have you read the decision on the penalties at www.hrnz.co.nz
In there the background to how the no defence rule came about.
A give and take.
Take away the defence, create a new rule with much lighter penalties.
FYI..I know that some people think I have dealings with the JCA i.e. insider
But No...I am a trainer, owner and breeder in that order.
In my spare time I study the laws in NZ as they apply to racing, the inner workings of the judicial system, and all cases.
I live with these rules, They are part of my life and should I ever need to I hope to have all the ins and outs to defend myself
This is a case I have studied closely. My personal views I still hold close to my chest and may surprise some.
ight through the many posts I have simply tried to explain how things work in NZ for us Licence holders.
The rule as it now stands is regarded by many as a protection.
Most drug cases in NZ are accidental with no malice intent.
This rule suits many as they are unable to explain events that have obviously happened through some oversight or whatever.
This rule covers these events and provides a wakeup call to transgressors.
For other serious transgressors there is another rule with much heavier penalties.
Trainers plead guilty as they are responsible for all that happens in their stable and staff.
It's the cheapest way out..Take the rap and get on with it...eh.
Racing Appeals Tribunal, High Court, or J,C,A . Can someone PLEASE acknowledge that this thing is NOT OVER , as was my original post,
Teecee the rulings you have posted above refer to presenting a horse or in the stated case Greyhound to race free of banned substance which we are all aware of and this is what Lance Justice has been found guilty of ,But what I have been trying to explain IS the appeal will be about the possibility of the horse being contaminated AFTER THE RACE
The High Court will be asked to perform a JUDICIAL REVIEW.Quote:
Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY
A JUDICIAL REVIEW is not a rehearing of the evidence. It is to determine whether the rule is consistent with NZ law and whether the processes of the original hearing were consistent with NZ law practice.
They have ruled previously that the rules of HRNZ and the manner that JcA hearings are held ARE consistent with NZ Law. Cropp v NZTR and JCA.
An APPEAL to the Racing Appeals Tribunal is for that Tribunal to determine if the decisions of the JCA panel were manifestly at odds with the evidence.
It is not a relitigation of the evidence or a platform for a hearing of new evidence.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.
Contamination was one of many issues for determination by the hearing panel and was rejected.
Could this be challenged in the High Court ?
all due respect Teecee, but the contamination issues rejected were about contamination in the samples, not about post race contamination of the horse, which is quite a separate and to my understanding an untested point.Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
No. A judicial review does not look at evidence. The appeal to RAT can look at that and determine if the views of the hearing panel are consistent with the evidence they heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY
That would be an attempt to introduce NEW evidence. You can't introduce new evidence at appeal. Basically you've had your day in court. Appeals and reviews are about whether you had a fair hearing and the verdicts are fair based on what evidence was provided at that hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Like I said, I understand why this case was decided the way it was (it really couldn't be determined any other way) and why there was mandatory disqualification. Initially I didn't appreciate/realise that there are fundamental differences between the way NZ and Australia do things. I do now (no doubt with the help from your posts, thank you) but that doesn't mean I agree with how things are done in NZ. I don't think Australia's way of doing things is the be all and end all, either. For example I don't agree with our stewards being the judge, jury and prosecutor in our system but that is an argument for another day.
And I do think the rules need to be revised and/or changed in NZ. It does not necessarily mean much lighter penalties, however. It's a moot point, but if this Interdom was run and won in Australia and the same thing happened (ie DMSO positive) and in regards to the numerous techicalities, that were listed in the decision, that I have read, I have no doubt in my mind that the charges would have been dismissed. I have seen/read of them being dismissed in Australia for much more trivial circumstances than those in this case.
My understanding is it's a high court challenge not an appeal, if that is the case new evidence is entirely admissableQuote:
Originally Posted by teecee