The Judicial Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has today issued a regarding an appeal which has been lodged by the 性视界传媒against the decision of the Disciplinary Panel. The appeal relates to a case involving trainer Philip Hobbs which was heard on 10 August 2017, and is against the decision of the Disciplinary Panel to find that Rule (G) 11.4 of the Rules of Racing was satisfied and to therefore not impose a penalty upon the trainer for his breach of Rule (G) 2.1.
Explaining the BHA鈥檚 decision to appeal, Jamie Stier, Chief Regulatory Officer for the BHA, said:
鈥淭he appeal of the 性视界传媒is intended to seek clarification in relation to the interpretation of Rule (G)11.4 by the Disciplinary Panel.
鈥淲e are appealing this decision on the basis of the principle alone, not the fact of the absence of the penalty against the respondent. Should the appeal be successful the 性视界传媒would be asking for only a nominal penalty to be imposed.
鈥淲e have made it clear that an appeal would only be lodged by the 性视界传媒in exceptional circumstances and when a decision of the Panel may impact on the BHA鈥檚 ability to regulate the sport effectively. While we cannot go into detail regarding the specifics of this case ahead of the appeal hearing, we are of the view that the Panel鈥檚 interpretation of the Rules in the original hearing was not correct and therefore an appeal was necessary to establish an agreed interpretation.
鈥淭his is the first time that the 性视界传媒has lodged an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Panel since the ability for the 性视界传媒to appeal was introduced in 2014.鈥�
The 性视界传媒has agreed to indemnify the respondents for all reasonable costs incurred in responding to an appeal from the 性视界传媒in the event that the respondent is successful.
Notes to editors:
1. The formal appeal notice can be found here [link]. This notice contains a brief summary of the case in question and the finding by the Disciplinary Panel.
2. The full decision and written reasons from the original hearing can be found here.
3. The 性视界传媒is not able to offer any further comment regarding the details of the case until after the hearing has concluded and the Appeal Board鈥檚 decision and written reasons are published.
4. The grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged by the 性视界传媒are:
1. That the reasons given are insufficient to support the decision;
2. That there was insufficient material on the basis of which a reasonable decision maker could have made the decision in question;
3. That the decision maker
a. Misconstrued,
b. Failed to apply, or
c. Wrongly applied these Rules, General Instructions or regulations which are relevant to the decision;
4. That any Disciplinary Penalty or any award, order or other sanction is so disproportionate that no reasonable decision maker could have decided upon it; or
5. That there is evidence available for the appeal which had it been available at the original hearing, would have caused the decision maker to reach a materially different decision.
