Smoken up

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

Yes. :)

Also in regards to that old legal adage... I had to watch an older video on America about the death penalty and the numerous cases (especially pre-DNA era) of completely innocent people being executed (and subsequently exonerated for the crime after their death). The looks of some of their families interviewed in the video STILL haunt me. A bit of a moot point really for Australia, but even large fines or gaol time... could not think of anything worse than being punished for something that I didn't do. :-/

Yeah I know what you mean. This feels bad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Williamson

But a few weeks ago I read a book called called Rats: Crooks Who Got Away With It by John Silvester and Andrew Rule and thats just as devestating.

Edit: Speaking of 1 in 10 it's nice to see you're in the 1 in 10 (unofficial) who can correctly spell moot!

I actually rechecked the rules last night and I have to apologise for what I told you previously.
Appeals against raceday decisions regarding horses i.e. relegation, disqualification etc are not permitted.
Appeals against horses for no raceday decisions like drug hearings etc are permitted to the Racing Appeals Tribunal which is part of JCA. They look after all these things.
Appeals by hosemen for raceday and non raceday decisions can be appealed to the RAT.

However that is as far as it goes.
Racing Act 2003 forbids appeals against decisions of the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
Means you get one shot at it and you can't go to the Courst.
Exert Racing Act 2003
21 Appeals against placings and stakes

(1) No person is entitled to appeal to any appeals tribunal against

any decision made by a judicial committee on the day of a race

in respect of placings in that race or stakes payable for those

placings.

(2) Nothing in subclause (1) prevents a judicial committee, at any

time after the day of any race, from disqualifying a horse for a

race, and making any order the committee considers appropriate

as to the alteration of the placings in the race and the stakes

payable for those placings,—

(a) on a ground relating to a drug, stimulant, or depressant

having been administered to the horse; or

(b) on the ground that the horse was ineligible to start in the

race; or

(c) on any other ground on which, under the relevant racing

rules, a horse may be disqualified for a race after it has

started in the race.

(3) If a judicial committee decides, after the day of a race, that

a horse should be disqualified for the race on any ground referred

to in subclause (2), the owner of the horse may appeal

against the decision to an appeals tribunal.

The decision of the Appeals Tribunal shall be final, shall bind all bodies and persons and

shall not be subject to any appeal under these Rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

That's the thing. I disagree with any rule that is written to be almost defenceless. That is flat out not fair. And while I don't profess to be an expert by any stretch of the means in regards to the JCA/NZ Rules - no matter how I look at this - and this includes your comments - what I gather about this whole scenario is that a trainer isn't just responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for matters/people out of their own control. To me, that's not fair.

Tee Cee I have another question - I believe you told me once before that the NZ Court system doesn't normally entertain appeals from the JCA. Is this a hard and fast rule? I could have sworn that Lisa Cropp had something go through the courts a few years ago??

Yes u are right and that was probably the last straw the L Cropp thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

That's the thing. I disagree with any rule that is written to be almost defenceless. That is flat out not fair. And while I don't profess to be an expert by any stretch of the means in regards to the JCA/NZ Rules - no matter how I look at this - and this includes your comments - what I gather about this whole scenario is that a trainer isn't just responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for matters/people out of their own control. To me, that's not fair.

Tee Cee I have another question - I believe you told me once before that the NZ Court system doesn't normally entertain appeals from the JCA. Is this a hard and fast rule? I could have sworn that Lisa Cropp had something go through the courts a few years ago??

I guess and only IMO all parties can take some responsibility.
There appears to be a massive amount of research done on both sides.
Panel have been dealing with other cases
Defence counsel is a daytime Crown prosecutor in this region and she has had numerous trial cases in this period of time going through the courts.
I believe there were numerous conferences held prior to the hearing getting off the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

Very interesting conversation and many good comments/points made,however,why,oh why, has it taken six months to get here?
Would expect an appeal and if the time taken to get to this point was, IMO (unacceptably) so long,we will know the winner of ID13 before this is all over.

Thanks for your replies Tee Cee, they are always appreciated :)

I am not 100% sure how the standard of proof is applied/interrelated with cases in New Zealand (or indeed what the standard is, ie balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt), but surely Tee Cee could enlighten us on that. :
Racing cases are on the balance of probabilities..)

I would go as far to say if this case were heard in Australia that charges would have been dismissed. I would go as far to say if this case were heard in an actual NZ Court, should/if it ever get there, these charges would also have a good chance of being dismissed.
Just take one more step. the section in the findings is a bit long to reproduce here but if you read clause 3.12 to 3.23 you will see that the High Court and later our Court of Appeals (Our 2 highest courts at the time) did rule on the Absolute Liability Rules and could find NO Fault with them when asked to rule on them. Lance's lawyer is an exceedingly good lawyer who as you can see from the hearings has tried everything on IM a hiding to nothing case. IMO 50/50 to appeal

I dont want to completely rubbish our legal system to u ozzies but have you heard of
Arthur alan Thomas convicted twice of double murder spent 10+ years locked up. Pardoned and paid $1mill.
David Bain convicted of 5x murders of his family 14yrs locked up. After numerous appeals Cleared at retrial awaiting compensation claim.
David dougherty convicted of rape xx years locked up Cleared at Retrial by DNAThank G.D for no capital punishment..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

Yes. :)

Also in regards to that old legal adage... I had to watch an older video on America about the death penalty and the numerous cases (especially pre-DNA era) of completely innocent people being executed (and subsequently exonerated for the crime after their death). The looks of some of their families interviewed in the video STILL haunt me. A bit of a moot point really for Australia, but even large fines or gaol time... could not think of anything worse than being punished for something that I didn't do. :-/

I have heard of the Arthur Alan Thomas case... if not that one, one in NZ with similar fact scenario, it rung a bell...