Jamie Kah Wins case in Supreme Court: Back on Track soon!

[Chief Stipe]

Jockeys

Kah ‘can’t wait’ to return after Supreme Court win

Star jockey Jamie Kah. Picture: Racing Photos

 

 

By Gilbert Gardiner
11:44am • 17 November 2021

Star jockey Jamie Kah cannot wait to get back to the races after her Supreme Court appeal of a two-month ban for giving false and/or misleading evidence to stewards was successful.

Kah’s original three month ban for a Covid-19 breach in late August – hosting a gathering at an Airbnb rental in Mornington – will expire at midnight November 25.

“I am obviously very happy with the outcome,” Kah said in a statement shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

“It’s now time to move forward.

“I can’t wait to get back to what I love, riding and being part of our amazing industry.

“Thanks to everyone who has said kind words to me or provided moral support over the last three months, it has been a real comfort through very tough times.

“As I said last time, I won’t be making any further public comment. See you at the races!!”

Kah, 25, who accepted her sanction for the gathering itself, launched the Supreme Court challenge in October after being found guilty and penalised for lying to stewards.

 

 

Supreme Court Justice Niall QC set aside the two-month penalty but stopped short of dismissing the charge completely.

Justice Niall upheld multiple grounds of appeal, including Kah being “denied” procedural fairness.

He also said the Victorian Racing Tribunal’s decision “did not reflect the charge as made by the stewards”.

“The position is, counsel, I propose to set aside the determination of penalty,” Justice Niall said.

“Can I indicate for the benefit of counsel that the originating motion seeks, by way of relief, an order from the court dismissing the charge, although I’m prepared to hear further argument on it, I’m not minded to dismiss the charge.

“It’s no role of the court of course, in judicial reviews, to determine the merits of the charge.”

 

 

 

Kah could be the first of the five jockeys implicated in the gathering to return to the racing arena.

Fellow jockeys and gathering attendees Celine Gaudray, Ethan Brown, Mark Zahra and Ben Melham will be eligible to resume in coming weeks and months following the expiration of their respective bans.

Brown, Zahra and Melham withdrew appeals of three-month suspensions and did not challenge the “false/misleading” charge, which attracted additional bans, ranging from two to eight weeks respectively.

Gaudray, who did not appeal the original three-month ban, will serve two weeks for the lying to stewards.

Jamie Kah’s original ban for a Covid-19 breach ends on November 25. Picture: Racing Photos via Getty Images

 

While Kah accepted her part in the Mornington Covid-19 breach at the earliest opportunity, the 25-year-old has remained adamant she never lied to stewards.

Kah alleged she was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal found her guilty of giving false and/or misleading evidence despite never being asked directly to name all gathering attendees.

The stewards case hinged on Kah not naming Zahra when the question “who ended up being there?” was asked the morning after the August 25 gathering.

Kah interpreted the question to when police arrived at the property to investigate a noise complaint.

An extract of the stewards’ interview was included in the Supreme Court decision document.

STEWARD: And who ended up being there?

KAH: Ethan Brown and Ben Melham and their friend, Rob Cummings.

STEWARD: Yes. Was there another female there?

KAH: Yeah, there was another girl later on. Look, I’m not really quite sure who she is. I honestly – honest truth, I couldn’t really tell you who she is, and that was not the intention for her to be there.

 

Jamie Kah strapping Bless Her at Flemington on Derby Day. Picture: Getty Images

 

Following the exchange the inquiry shifted to Kah’s movements after the races.

Justice Niall highlighted the stewards’ investigatory failure.

“The failure of the stewards to pinpoint a false answer arose in this case because the questions asked by the stewards lacked specificity,” Justice Niall said.

“The stewards may well have assumed that the plaintiff had provided a full list of the persons who were present at any time that night.

“However, they did not ask the plaintiff in a clear and unequivocal way to give that information.

“It is also notable that in answer to the question that the Tribunal ultimately focused on, the plaintiff did not refer to Ms Gaudray nor the unnamed female person she identified in answer to the next question.

“It could hardly be said that in failing to refer to those two people the plaintiff was giving a deliberately false answer to the question she was asked.

“The fact that the questions lacked a degree of specificity and did not expressly ask the plaintiff to list all of the people who were present on the night, did not of itself mean that the plaintiff’s evidence could not be false or misleading.”