Chief Stipe Posted November 27, 2023 Share Posted November 27, 2023 ‘Cowards, disrespectful': Jamie Kah's barrister slams white powder case Jamie Kah on the night in question. By Gilbert Gardiner 03:04pm • 27 November 2023 Jamie Kah's blameworthiness and recklessness was substantiated because "she ought to have known her actions were being filmed", counsel acting for stewards said in closing submissions to her white powder hearing on Monday. Stablehand Ruby McIntyre's blameworthiness, central to the stewards' case to prove conduct prejudicial to the image of racing, is encapsulated by her decision to secretly record Kah's actions and share the footage. Kah and McIntyre, who have both pleaded not guilty, were charged by stewards with conduct prejudicial to the image, interests, integrity or welfare of racing. Kah's barrister, however, on Monday slammed the case against the champion jockey, accusing Racing Victoria of attacking Kah's "integrity and honesty" in a "cowardly way and a most disrespectful way". "The stewards say (McIntyre) should've known better than to capture and share those recordings," RV's counsel, Damian Hannan, said in Monday's hearing. "She would've known Kah's reputation is inherently related to the image of racing and … perceptions of the industry." McIntyre told the tribunal on November 13 she discreetly recorded Kah raking the white powder substance on a plate. Jamie Kah and Ruby McIntyre leave the white powder hearing on November 13. "There's an awareness of the risk and inappropriateness of the conduct, she (McIntyre) took that risk and distributed the recordings, as she conceded in her evidence," Mr Hannan said. "… Ms Kah not testing positive … is irrelevant to the tribunal, (it is) not suggested she ingested anything illegal. "It's the image, it's the manipulation of that powder and suspicion it could be illegal … that is what this is all about." On the vision being secretly recorded, Mr Hannan added: "Even if it was done surreptitiously this does not absolve Ms Kah's blameworthiness … she was well aware a selfie was taken on the phone of Ms McIntyre early in the evening, for the purpose of being sent to others on social media." "She had not previously met Ms McIntyre, she'd taken the selfie and knew it was being sent, she should've been put on notice in what she did, manipulate that substance on the plate (that) might be captured … it was far from a remote possibility (for photos get out into the public domain)." Barrister Matthew Stirling, acting for Kah, said his client had nothing to do with the taping of the conduct, or its publication. Stirling's position centred on the gathering being at Kah's house, McIntyre's covert recording, and a lack of precedent. "No case decided by any racing tribunal in Australia has gone so far as to say a licensed person in their own private home, and they have no knowledge, (that) the footage might be taken," Stirling said. "It was an unlawful act, none of the racing cases so far go so far to place liability for conduct under this rule. "In each case (past misconduct cases) … occurred on a racecourse, or racing premises, or public place… or the licensed person has caused the conduct to enter into the public domain. Jamie Kah in images with a white powder. Source: Supplied "That's the distinction with this case, firstly Kah is not in public or in racing premises, or anywhere (other than her home), and secondly Kah has done nothing to get the footage or the conduct out in the public domain." Stirling also slammed Racing Victoria's "attack" on Kah's "integrity and honesty" in a "cowardly way and a most disrespectful way" at the start of the hearing on November 13 where they attempted to discredit the answers she gave to stewards early in their inquiry. Kah and McIntyre were charged with conduct prejudicial to racing, not misleading stewards. "They sought to attack her honesty because they knew there was this gaping hole in their case," Stirling said in relation to Kah having nothing to do with the recording of the footage and its publication. Stirling said McIntyre's actions were unlawful and she knew Kah would not want to take that vision. "We have a clear break in the chain here, the conduct of Kah stops and the conduct of Ms McIntyre starts at the kitchen table and the chain stops because McIntyre has said she took it secretly." Stirling continued: "If this had occurred on racing premises or in a hotel, Kah is probably fair game, but that's not what's happened here, that's why the case goes too far." McIntyre on Monday lamented her "big mistake". "I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by everything," McIntyre said. "It was a big mistake trusting someone to send a very private video to, I understand everything that has come from that has come from the video I had on my phone. "I guess in the way it was sent, just how private it was and how it was a one-time thing, it has shocked me how it's been able to come out… that was never my intention." The hearing concluded about 1.10pm on Monday. Judge John Bowman said the three-member panel, which includes Des Gleeson and Maree Payne, would reveal a decision as quickly as possible. "We are not going to give a ruling on the spot … I can't give you a time frame, all I can say is we'll do it as quickly as possible," Bowman said. * * * * * EARLIER: Star jockey Jamie Kah and stablehand Ruby McIntyre will appear before the Victorian Racing Tribunal on Monday to continue a hearing into the white powder saga. Kah and McIntyre pleaded not guilty to conduct prejudicial to racing when the hearing commenced on November 13. The second and final day of the hearing, set to be held on November 14, was rescheduled for Racing Victoria to verify a specific screenshot and caption in the brief of evidence. McIntyre allegedly captioned an image shared on social media with: "Something to add to the list of things I never thought I'd be doing, doing coke with Jamie Kah and another friend at her house until 3am and staying the night." During evidence on November 13, McIntyre said the caption was not written by her. "I'm not sure where the actual messages and photo and screenshot, in this format (evidence book before tribunal), has come from," McIntyre said. Pressed on the caption, McIntyre said: "Not to my recollection, I didn't write any of these things … I'm not sure who it's come from … everything in that screenshot has not come from my phone, has not come from me." The hearing was adjourned for RV stewards to confirm the origins of the screenshot and caption. READ | ‘I still have to search horse's names': Jamie Kah reveals latest battles Jamie Kah, Ruby McIntyre and greyhound trainer Jacob Biddell in the leaked images. Stewards charged Kah and McIntyre in July with conduct prejudicial to the image, interests, integrity or welfare of racing, whether or not the conduct takes place within a racecourse or elsewhere. Images from the night in question. The charge stemmed from leaked images and a video of Kah raking a white powder into three lines with an ID card during a private gathering at her house on June 17-18. McIntyre allegedly shared the footage on social media with a person(s) not at the party. The images and video were leaked to the Herald Sun and subsequently circulated widely on social media. READ | How Jamie Kah white powder scandal unfolded Ruby McIntyre. If found guilty, the sanctions available to the VRT include a fine, suspension and/or disqualification. The stewards' case rests on three elements – public knowledge (leaked images/video), the "self-evident" conduct prejudicial to the sport, and blameworthiness. Kah told the VRT on November 13 she was unaware the photos or video, recorded covertly by McIntyre, existed until they were leaked to the media. Final submissions, including proposals on penalty, will be made by the prosecution and defence on Monday. The half-day hearing resumes from 11am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted November 27, 2023 Share Posted November 27, 2023 'lines'...are the problem...here.😄 If you beat your wife up behind closed doors and someone reveals it to authorities ,would that qualify for 'the line being drawn at the...front door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 27, 2023 Author Share Posted November 27, 2023 14 minutes ago, holy ravioli said: 'lines'...are the problem...here.😄 If you beat your wife up behind closed doors and someone reveals it to authorities ,would that qualify for 'the line being drawn at the...front door? That's an issue for the Police not your employer or the pseudo-Feds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted November 27, 2023 Share Posted November 27, 2023 13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said: someone reveals it to authorities This is where the line is crossed. If someone wants to lodge a complaint or press a charge by breaking the 'privacy' barrier and revealing ones activities to the 'authorities'. whether it be a police matter (like in your wife beat example) , or simpler things like infringements at the workplace, reactions to something your neighbours do (like noise /dogs , etc) if someone lodges a COMPLAINT with the authorities then action might be needed. People do ALL Sorts of funny things/games/ acts at parties and get-togethers. and a lot of people might find some of the activities offensive .. but you don't worry about it after ... unless some poor lonely schmuck living under a rock , thinks the activities are not just 'Private entertainment' , and decides to get someone crucified and lodges a complaint and crosses that front door LINE. ( they're dead set degenerates) 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted November 27, 2023 Share Posted November 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: That's an issue for the Police not your employer or the pseudo-Feds. That may well be your opinion, but the reality is if your actions cause reputational damage to your employer,it is ...their concern,these days anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 27, 2023 Author Share Posted November 27, 2023 33 minutes ago, holy ravioli said: That may well be your opinion, but the reality is if your actions cause reputational damage to your employer,it is ...their concern,these days anyway. How do my actions at home have anything to do with my employer? By the far the majority of people I know consider it to be none of their business. It only concerns the nosey minority woke Karen's such as yourself and @Thomass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 27, 2023 Author Share Posted November 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Gammalite said: unless some poor lonely schmuck living under a rock , thinks the activities are not just 'Private entertainment' , and decides to get someone crucified and lodges a complaint and crosses that front door LINE. ( they're dead set degenerates) I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted November 28, 2023 Share Posted November 28, 2023 36 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: How do my actions at home have anything to do with my employer? By the far the majority of people I know consider it to be none of their business. It only concerns the nosey minority woke Karen's such as yourself and @Thomass. Back to your default setting....playing the man not the...ball. The majority of people you know may think you're intelligent,that fortunately does not necessarily confirm that you...are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 28, 2023 Author Share Posted November 28, 2023 3 minutes ago, holy ravioli said: Back to your default setting....playing the man not the...ball. No I'm not I'm just pointing out the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted November 28, 2023 Share Posted November 28, 2023 14 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: No I'm not I'm just pointing out the facts. Puerile insults are most definitely not...facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammalite Posted November 28, 2023 Share Posted November 28, 2023 Been a bit unlucky with her parties has the young Jamie. Copped 3 months Suspension (along with Ben Melham, Celine Gaudray and Ethan Brown ) when they had a 'get-togeather' party during those stupid Victorian Covid Lock-downs in 2021. She missed the Spring racing carnival and potentially $100,000 + in earnings. some moron dobbed them in then too , it would seem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.