Jason Lee

[Plunge Punter]

No, I can't agree. I think you have confused the point I was trying to make, sorry if my legal language was incorrect! I was not trying to make any comment on the burden of proof, I was focusing on the elements of mens rea. If mens rea is not relevant why are the stewards distinguishing between intention and culpability in their report? The stewards will need to convince the RABD in probability that Jason Lee 'intended' not to take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of the race.

[astoevelaar]

I agree with you on that point. I assume the stewards thought to put that phrase into the report to highlight their belief that he did not have an alteria motive to drive poorly but was indeed guilty of not giving the horse every possible chance through his actions. I can only surmise they are reacting to criticism about a lack of consistency and discretion in implementing penalties re. John Justice suspension. In the end the stewards shouldn't make judgements onto motive unless backed with evidence and just hand out their penalties regardless of criticism. I think they thought they were doing it to protect Jason's integrity and reputation. In the end the penalty will still stand regardless. I have a lot of sympathy for stewards. They enforce regulations because it's their job. It's the job of the controlling bodies to update the racing policy and subsequent suspension policies. I get the same nonsense from parents when I teach saying they aren't happy with aspects of the curriculum. In the end I have a job to do. I'm sure stewards would feel the same.

[Plunge Punter]

I agree with you on that point. I assume the stewards thought to put that phrase into the report to highlight their belief that he did not have an alteria motive to drive poorly but was indeed guilty of not giving the horse every possible chance through his actions. I can only surmise they are reacting to criticism about a lack of consistency and discretion in implementing penalties re. John Justice suspension. In the end the stewards shouldn't make judgements onto motive unless backed with evidence and just hand out their penalties regardless of criticism. I think they thought they were doing it to protect Jason's integrity and reputation. In the end the penalty will still stand regardless. I have a lot of sympathy for stewards. They enforce regulations because it's their job. It's the job of the controlling bodies to update the racing policy and subsequent suspension policies. I get the same nonsense from parents when I teach saying they aren't happy with aspects of the curriculum. In the end I have a job to do. I'm sure stewards would feel the same.

I value your fair minded opinion Arjuna. I have been to a few appeal hearings in my time but I think you are drawing a long bow by saying stewards were protecting Jason's integrity. When stewards are handing out a suspension they know that there is a fair chance that it will be going to appeal and every word they and the driver say will appear on the transcript to be presented at the appeal hearing. I can bet my bottom dollar when the stewards said Jason was culpable it wasn't to protect Jason's integrity. If this goes to appeal I am certain these comments will return to haunt them.

One other point I will make is that the Chairman of the RADB is Brian Collis QC, he is no pushover and he makes sure the stewards have applied the correct rule to the letter. Will be interesting to see if Jason appeals. I think he was hard done by, the horse hadn't won for 25 starts and the horses racing pattern had been until then was to drive him with one run at the finish. I guess Jason can tell that story to the RADB if he wants!

[astoevelaar]

It will be interesting either way Steve. When I said protecting his integrity wasn't exactly what I was going for. I think they are trying to make a strong distinction between this instance and say certain cases the latest being in Queensland recently where the horse in question was laid and the horse deliberately buried, which I don't think you can argue in this instance as you rightly point out about Narra Operatives natural racing pattern. I just see an issue with the difficulty for stewards to weed out those who tarnish the fabric of the Industry because we still live in the shadow of the red hots. If we move to a system that's based to beyond all reasonable doubt, it reduces the ability of stewards to take necessary action to protect the integrity of the industry. It is bad enough when appeals are taken to VCAT that operate on a completely different burden of proof. It would not surprise me if Jason appealed and the sentence reduced, however I can't see how the decision could be overturned. In the end time will tell. Maybe we will pick up again next suspension nice to meet you steve.

[Plunge Punter]

I think this appeal will be upheld, I can't see how it can be dismissed! The stewards are already making concessions in their steward's report. I wouldn't know Jason Lee if I fell over him but any trainer I talk to that he has driven for say he is straight up and down. Owners and trainers soon give a driver a bad name if they are crooked!

Im all for stewards having more power, my issue here with this case is how the rule is written. I have been banging on for 6 months on Twitter for rule 149 (1) to have the words 'intentionally, recklessly or negligently' included. This would make it so much easier for the stewards to hand down water-tight penalties.

Nice chatting Arjuna!

[thepacingman]

I'll come at this from another angle. I don't think he should have been charged under 149(1). To me, it was either 147(1) or 168(1).

With the stewards saying they thought there was no intent, that knocks out 147. Probably fair enough as these are very difficult to prove. But I'd like to think the stewards did consider charging Lee under this rule.
147. (1) A driver shall race a horse on its merits.

That leaves 168. IMHO, if no intent then the drive was not an error of judgement but incompetent. I'm thinking even someone with the very poorest judgement would not move to the pegs at that stage of the race. It just defied belief and logic.
168. (1) A person shall not before, during or after a race drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is careless, reckless, incompetent, intimidatory, improper, foul or likely to endanger persons or horses.

As for all the legalities mentioned by Steve and Arjuna I'll pass on that. But would be interested to hear whether they think a 168 would stick better than a 149 on appeal.

[Plunge Punter]

Rule 168 refers to driving in a dangerous manner more so than rules 147-149 which are referring to competitive driving. The way rule 149 (1) written it is a very wishy washy rule. With the stewards saying there was no intent, only culpability (negligence), the stewards are saying the driver made an omission not a positive, direct, voluntary action. I think the stewards meant to say Lee was reckless not culpable, two words with similar meaning but important differences in legal definitions.

[teecee]

So which rule do you feel deals simply with an "error of judgement" or "poor decision" in the heat of the race?

[Plunge Punter]

"Error of judgement" or "poor decision" are not really the points being argued here but I understand what you mean. The way rule 149 (1) reads is that drivers who are reckless or negligent/culpable are not covered under this rule. Any driver who has been charged and found guilty with this rule for miscounting laps or been caught 3 wide for the race and have appealed to RADB have in the past have only had to go to the RADB and say I didn't intend the "error in judgement" or "poor decision". Jim O'Sullivan got off for miscounting the laps and Michelle Wight got of for being caught 3 wide have successfully argued the case that they never intended to breach rule 149 (1). The rule is so sloppily written it is unbelievable.

[thepacingman]

It all seems to come down to words and I'll add my 10c worth of bush lawyering. Steve, you say 149 is badly written, what about 168?? The way it is worded covers reckless as I read it. Two small words with a big difference: "and" and "or". eg. "A or B", A and B".

168. (1) A person shall not before, during or after a race drive in a manner which in the opinion of the Stewards is careless, reckless, incompetent, intimidatory, improper, foul or likely to endanger persons or horses.

The highlighted "or" is the issue. So up to and including the word "foul" is A and after is B.
Steve, you say 168 refers to driving in a dangerous manner but where does A? To cover dangerous I reckon the highlighted "or" should be "and".