High Court raps RIB on knuckles over Wigg case.

[Chief Stipe]

High Court Ruling - Wigg vs RIB 14 March 2014.pdf

I see the High Court has said the penalty handed down to Wigg was not consistent with other precedents and that the RIB needs to reconsider.

[Chief Stipe]

Conclusion

[60] On the information before me, I am unable to reconcile the penalty imposed

on the applicant in this case with the penalties imposed on the other respondents to

whom I have referred. That is not to say the differences cannot be explained but that

explanation is not presently apparent. This decision is not intended as a criticism. For

instance, I do not know if any of the cases to which I have referred were relied on

before the Tribunal. Also, it may be that there are other cases which are relevant and

which have not been part of the case before me.

[61] However, in the circumstances on the information before me, the only proper

course is to remit this matter back to the RIB for reconsideration.

Result

[62] I remit this matter back to the Racing Integrity Board for reconsideration.

[63] The parties may make submissions on costs in the absence of agreement.

[the galah]

So it seems a given that Wigg's period of disqualification will be reduced and that she proved her point that it was excessive, when comparing it to similar breaches of cases that she brought to the courts attention. 

Some interesting points the judge made around the penalty guidelines

He said the industry participants should have access to the guide which sets out the penalties for such offences,but it wasn't proven that they did.

That penalties should be decided by those hearing the cases and not the industry(hrnz),saying it was not for the industry to have the level of input it does in formulating the penalties that are to be imposed.

Also he had reservations about whether the penalty guide that changed in 2018 to recognise the severity of certain breaches of similar rules,in fact applied to the rule wigg was charged with.

The most obvious thing he didn't rule on,which seemed earlier to be the main thrust of wiggs case,was whether the make up of the panels hearing the appeals of these  type of cases were biased,given the members hearing them came from the same pool of people that had heard the case originally.

Seems he felt he didn't have to decide that given his decision around the penalty. Seems he kicked for touch on that one. Whether anyone else in the future would pursue a case to that court based solely on that point,would seem unlikely given the cost.

I wonder what the ruling is on whether hrnz has to contribute to any of ms wigg's costs of bringing the case. They no doubt would have been quite substantial, so she must be hoping she recovers even a portion of them.

It may have been an interesting case,but it wasn't one  that effects the every day industry participant, as only those charged with that type of charge has to deal with it. The likes of whether a trainer/driver is being fairly and consistently treated in a knowledgeable way when it comes to the day to day calls around the likes of ordinary occurrences like interference or whip rule breaches,relegations,etc. Those debates will continue every so often.

[Chief Stipe]

5 hours ago, the galah said:

Some interesting points the judge made around the penalty guidelines

He said

She said.  The Judge is a woman.  I'm not sure she understands racing all that much.

[Chief Stipe]

5 hours ago, the galah said:

 

I wonder what the ruling is on whether hrnz has to contribute to any of ms wigg's costs of bringing the case. They no doubt would have been quite substantial, so she must be hoping she recovers even a portion of them

Costs have nothing to do with HRNZ.  The Respondent was the RIB.

[Chief Stipe]

5 hours ago, the galah said:

The most obvious thing he didn't rule on,which seemed earlier to be the main thrust of wiggs case,was whether the make up of the panels hearing the appeals of these  type of cases were biased,given the members hearing them came from the same pool of people that had heard the case originally.

Actually that's only part of the issue.  As many have pointed out when the RIB restructure was first presented there were inherent problems with the new organisation being the Police, Judge and Jury.  Also leaving only a very very expensive appeal option for those that are convicted.  In my opinion the new structure was a step backwards.  Some including yourself @the galah think things were going well.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Actually that's only part of the issue.  As many have pointed out when the RIB restructure was first presented there were inherent problems with the new organisation being the Police, Judge and Jury.  Also leaving only a very very expensive appeal option for those that are convicted.  In my opinion the new structure was a step backwards.  Some including yourself @the galah think things were going well.

Not sure i have ever commented about the backgrounds of those who work at the RIB or the likes of the adjudicators. Nor have i commented on the processes of things like appeals,or whether there are possible conflicts of interest. 

What i have commented on previously is whether the current RIB does a better job in enforcing the rules in a way that treats everyone in a similar manner,in other words not deeming some to be deserving of  preferential treatment/protection, based on their level of success. And the opposite,not targeting someone because they are deemed an easy target. As far as that goes i have far more confidence in the current/recent RIB ,than previous administrators of such things.

Also,what i occasionally comment on,is what in my opinion,are the  right and wrongs of the cases. I don't have set views which have a start point of looking for fault in the way a matter is being policed.

Edited April 3, 2023 by the galah

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Costs have nothing to do with HRNZ.  The Respondent was the RIB.

Yes. i realised that. Thanks for clarifying that part of my post.

Edited April 3, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

8 hours ago, the galah said:

What i have commented on previously is whether the current RIB does a better job in enforcing the rules in a way that treats everyone in a similar manner,in other words not deeming some to be deserving of  preferential treatment/protection, based on their level of success.

But the Wigg case to the High Court was based on the opposite viewpoint.

[the galah]

23 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But the Wigg case to the High Court was based on the opposite viewpoint.

Don't see how you drew that conclusion.

My view is,that based on information gathered,they believed someone was  committing a serious breaches of the rules,so they used their resources to investigate. As a result of that investigation they uncovered wrongdoing. Thats their job. The penalties and the processes around hearings are what Ms Wigg raised in her case.

I always believe it is a positive that the RIB are actively using resources to attempt to create a more level playing for for all participants to compete on. I have always been consistent in my view on that. The licenceholders involved in such things are subject to comment based on what they do,not who they are.

Edited April 3, 2023 by the galah

[Robalan]

I believe the high court judge referred to many cases for comparitive cases which were not relevant to the Wigg case. Wigg deliberately administered a substance to her horses on raceday with an intent to boost their performance level. She lied about doing it.

In most comparative cases they were accepted by the RIU as accidental administrations and were admitted to by the defendents.

In spite of the recommendations from the High Court I believe the RIU should leave the penalty unchanged

[Gammalite]

15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Actually that's only part of the issue.  As many have pointed out when the RIB restructure was first presented there were inherent problems with the new organisation being the Police, Judge and Jury.  Also leaving only a very very expensive appeal option for those that are convicted.  In my opinion the new structure was a step backwards.  Some including yourself @the galah think things were going well.

Don't forget Chief a Lot of sentences include a 'Deterrent Factor' .you must deter others from copying and doing the same thing. Every sport is Full of Copycats. Trying to get that edge on opponents 😉.  Sometimes the Law Courts adjust sentences on appeal, as does the footy tribunal for Head-highs , etc. so nothing new. 

It comes down to the person presenting the case. I feel Dunn's were lucky to get their fines reduced from $14k and avoid a DQ even, in 2017 for Caffeine , but they must of presented a 'good' case and had a reduction.

As The Galah said WIGG was caught in the act , deliberately breaking the rules , so Penalty should stand (as per McGrath and others ) you need to deter others from committing these offences.

 

[the galah]

5 hours ago, Robalan said:

I believe the high court judge referred to many cases for comparitive cases which were not relevant to the Wigg case. Wigg deliberately administered a substance to her horses on raceday with an intent to boost their performance level. She lied about doing it.

In most comparative cases they were accepted by the RIU as accidental administrations and were admitted to by the defendents.

In spite of the recommendations from the High Court I believe the RIU should leave the penalty unchanged

I agree with a lot of what you say,but its unrealistic and unreasonable to expect  the ruling of the high court to be ignored. Wigg had a win of sorts in that respect and therefore deserves to have her disqualification term reduced.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, the galah said:

I agree with a lot of what you say,but its unrealistic and unreasonable to expect  the ruling of the high court to be ignored. Wigg had a win of sorts in that respect and therefore deserves to have her disqualification term reduced.

That's not correct.  The Judge sent the matter back to the RIB for reconsideration.  She didn't suggest that the penalty should be reduced but did say that further explanation may justify the penalty given.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That's not correct.  The Judge sent the matter back to the RIB for reconsideration.  She didn't suggest that the penalty should be reduced but did say that further explanation may justify the penalty given.

Thats your interpretation,,not mine.

Sounds like your saying, the RIB chose not to present evidence proving the original penalty was consistent with what others have received,and if they had then ms wigg wouldn't have had the case sent back to the RIB for reconsideration. Well if the RIB couldn't prove it to the high court,then why would you expect they could prove it to anyone else? Or maybe you are just disagreeing with what i have said ,just because you like to do that.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

Thats your interpretation,,not mine.

Sounds like your saying, the RIB chose not to present evidence proving the original penalty was consistent with what others have received,and if they had then ms wigg wouldn't have had the case sent back to the RIB for reconsideration. Well if the RIB couldn't prove it to the high court,then why would you expect they could prove it to anyone else? Or maybe you are just disagreeing with what i have said ,just because you like to do that.

No I just read the judgement.  If the Judge felt the penalty was too high she could have said that.  She didn't.  She also mentioned earlier in her judgement there may well be an explanation for the penalty but it wasn't presented.

The RIB didn't acquit themselves all that well it would seem.

[the galah]

53 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

No I just read the judgement.  If the Judge felt the penalty was too high she could have said that.  She didn't.  She also mentioned earlier in her judgement there may well be an explanation for the penalty but it was presented.

The RIB didn't acquit themselves all that well it would seem.

I read it as well. I guess you mistyped and meant wasn't presented. Anyway,i think its obvious they will reduce her period of disqualification ,even if you don't.

Edited April 4, 2023 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, the galah said:

I read it as well. I guess you mistyped and meant wasn't presented. Anyway,i think its obvious they will reduce her period of disqualification ,even if you don't.

I'll post the Judges conclusion again with some highlighting.

[60] On the information before me, I am unable to reconcile the penalty imposed on the applicant in this case with the penalties imposed on the other respondents to whom I have referred. That is not to say the differences cannot be explained but that explanation is not presently apparent. This decision is not intended as a criticism. For instance, I do not know if any of the cases to which I have referred were relied on before the Tribunal. Also, it may be that there are other cases which are relevant and which have not been part of the case before me.

[61] However, in the circumstances on the information before me, the only proper course is to remit this matter back to the RIB for reconsideration.

At no point does she say anything along the lines that the penalty was manifestly unjust.  She essentially says she can't see how the penalty was arrived at based on the evidence put before her.

Arguably there is a chance that Wiggs penalty could be increased.  Given the RIB's current modus operandi aka INCA I wouldn't be surprised if they dig their toes im and rehear the case. Then present a more complete explanation to justify the penalty.

It could go either way.

They will have to be careful that they don't open up the police, judge, jury and executioner issue.  I've heard that there are a few influential stakeholders wanting to address that issue.

[the galah]

45 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I'll post the Judges conclusion again with some highlighting.

[60] On the information before me, I am unable to reconcile the penalty imposed on the applicant in this case with the penalties imposed on the other respondents to whom I have referred. That is not to say the differences cannot be explained but that explanation is not presently apparent. This decision is not intended as a criticism. For instance, I do not know if any of the cases to which I have referred were relied on before the Tribunal. Also, it may be that there are other cases which are relevant and which have not been part of the case before me.

[61] However, in the circumstances on the information before me, the only proper course is to remit this matter back to the RIB for reconsideration.

At no point does she say anything along the lines that the penalty was manifestly unjust.  She essentially says she can't see how the penalty was arrived at based on the evidence put before her.

Arguably there is a chance that Wiggs penalty could be increased.  Given the RIB's current modus operandi aka INCA I wouldn't be surprised if they dig their toes im and rehear the case. Then present a more complete explanation to justify the penalty.

It could go either way.

They will have to be careful that they don't open up the police, judge, jury and executioner issue.  I've heard that there are a few influential stakeholders wanting to address that issue.

You've highlighted only part of the judgment. It needs to be read in totality.

Like i said,having read the judgment,in my opinion the period of disqualification needs to and will be reduced.

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

You've highlighted only part of the judgment. It needs to be read in totality.

In my opinion the Judge's conclusion truly reflects her position - as you would expect.

In my opinion the rehearing could go either way.  Up or down in terms of penalty.  The Judge hasn't directed one way or another regarding the penalty but has highlighted that the explanation doesn't justify the penalty.

All the RIB need to do is say in more detail the rationale of how they arrived at the penalty.

[the galah]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

In my opinion the Judge's conclusion truly reflects her position - as you would expect.

In my opinion the rehearing could go either way.  Up or down in terms of penalty.  The Judge hasn't directed one way or another regarding the penalty but has highlighted that the explanation doesn't justify the penalty.

All the RIB need to do is say in more detail the rationale of how they arrived at the penalty.

The judgement said this.. 

"The applicant brought her application for review on 2 grounds. The first ,which was pressed with the greatest force is that of procedural impropriety. 

The second is that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the tribunal was disproportionately severe.

As it turns out,i am satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first".

 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

The judgement said this.. 

"The applicant brought her application for review on 2 grounds. The first ,which was pressed with the greatest force is that of procedural impropriety. 

The second is that the penalty imposed on the applicant and upheld by the tribunal was disproportionately severe.

As it turns out,i am satisfied as to the second ground and need not determine the first".

 

But she based that on the information presented to her.  As I have repeatedly posted she said, to paraphrase, that the penalty may be justified however the explanation given so far doesn't support it.  She noted that when reviewing the other cases she was not privy to ALL the information used to determine the penalty.  

[Gammalite]

Well it all comes down to what the Penalty was ? was it different to other similar cases ? were they guilty? or not?

I found my friend here in QLD Darrel Graham (trainer father of sky channels Brittney)  had an elongated battle with Cobalt Disqualification 2015 for 15 months. still 9 months longer than 'Moods' and the galloping blokes got for cobalt.

On appeal from the reduced to 1 year after a long process. and battle with QLD integrity unit.

so off to the court and QLD civil and administrative Tribunal and 5 years later and an incredible $500,000 costs , he got Not Guilty in 2021 !! crazy stuff.

Is funny how time and money (and probably long frustration in the legal system) they just threw it out !!!!!!😄.

sick of the sight of it I spose?? a bit of a broken man after , but you wonder when is a positive not a positive then.   

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Gammalite said:

Well it all comes down to what the Penalty was ? was it different to other similar cases ? were they guilty? or not?

I found my friend here in QLD Darrel Graham (trainer father of sky channels Brittney)  had an elongated battle with Cobalt Disqualification 2015 for 15 months. still 9 months longer than 'Moods' and the galloping blokes got for cobalt.

On appeal from the reduced to 1 year after a long process. and battle with QLD integrity unit.

so off to the court and QLD civil and administrative Tribunal and 5 years later and an incredible $500,000 costs , he got Not Guilty in 2021 !! crazy stuff.

Is funny how time and money (and probably long frustration in the legal system) they just threw it out !!!!!!😄.

sick of the sight of it I spose?? a bit of a broken man after , but you wonder when is a positive not a positive then.   

Similar examples here.  Hard work defending yourself when the other side has what seems unlimited access to industry funds.

[the galah]

On 5/04/2023 at 8:05 AM, the galah said:

You've highlighted only part of the judgment. It needs to be read in totality.

Like i said,having read the judgment,in my opinion the period of disqualification needs to and will be reduced.

So the decision is out and it all turned out pretty much as expected.

Wigg's disqualification has been reduced when compared to the original length of disqualification given at the first hearing.

shes now  disqualified for 9 months,but given she'd already served 3 months,in reality she has a 6 month disqualification to serve.

Edited June 21, 2023 by the galah