You are here: Home / Race Days / Dummy Location - 1 January 2001 / Non-Raceday Inquiry - BJ Dyke Part 2

Non-Raceday Inquiry - BJ Dyke Part 2



1001.1.p
1001.1.v.i

Part 2:

Paragraph 8.  Result



Result

8.1          Having found that Mr Dyke knew he had been issued with an incorrect ticket and that he knew that what he had was a ticket for $16,320.00 the issue is then whether the decision to do nothing in those circumstances constitutes a breach of the Rules of Racing.

 

8.2          It was submitted by Mr Ryan that even if Mr Dyke did have the knowledge which the Committed has found to exist that his doing nothing did not constitute dishonesty in terms of Rule 1001 (1) (p). Similarly Mr Ryan contended that with reference to Rule 1001 (1) (v) (i) Mr Dyke’s inaction was not detrimental to the interests of racing.

 

8.3          The Committee first considers the charge under Rule 1001 (1) (p). It is appropriate to say at once that the Committee is satisfied that Mr Dyke did not set out to obtain a ticket which did not reflect the money he had paid. The printing out of the mistaken ticket appears to have arisen from a series of operator mistakes. Mr Colson made clear that it was the Informant’s position that the dishonesty contended for was in Mr Dyke failing to act when he knew the true position. To behave honestly means to behave in a way that is not false or misleading and is genuine. Honesty is said to be characterised by an absence of lying, cheating or stealing. In the Committee’s view it is not honest to retain a TAB ticket which has a value in excess of $16,000.00 when it is known that the ticket should only have a value of $60. Moreover Mr Dyke must have known from his long association with racing that there would be financial consequences for the TAB and/or its operators if he chose not to speak. The action is undoubtedly connected with racing. The expression connected with racing does not have reference simply to the conduct of race meetings or the behaviour of licensed persons at the race track. It has to do with the conduct of licensed persons and the conduct of betting upon horse races. Reference is again made to the judgment in the High Court in Carter (supra).

 

8.4          The Committee holds that Mr Dyke acted dishonestly in connection with racing. More precisely in terms of the rule he acted dishonestly with reference to the off-course totalisator. The relevant rule makes direct reference to the totalisator. This can only mean that licensed persons have an obligation to act with honesty where the totalisator is concerned. That did not happen here. The Committee finds that the allegation under Rule 1001 (1) (p) has been proved and so holds.

 

8.5          The information laid under Rule 1001 (1) (v) (i) is in the alternative. It follows from what has already been said that if it were necessary to consider this charge the Committee would find that the actions proved to have occurred were detrimental to the interests of racing. As observed in the judgement of the Judicial Committee in the case of D G Bradley 7 March 2008 the word detrimental means to act to the disadvantage or damage of the subject under discussion. Here the wider interests of racing are what is under discussion. The Committee takes the view that it is detrimental to the interests of racing that totalisator operators face the sort of circumstances which arose here. As already observed the wording of the rule under which the first information is laid makes a direct reference to the on or off-course totalisator. The rule makers must have considered that licensed persons had a positive obligation not to act in a way that was detrimental to the functioning of the totalisator. While Rule 1001 (1) (v) (i) speaks of the interests of racing and makes no direct reference to the totalisator the Committee is satisfied that the proper operation of the totalisator is in the best interests of racing. Any action which detracts from the proper operating of the totalisator is therefore an action which is detrimental to the wider interests of racing.

 

8.6          While it has not been strictly necessary for the Committee to consider the alternative charge it has been thought appropriate to make clear the thinking which the Committee would have adopted in the event that the first charge had not been proved. The Committee would have upheld the alternative charge.

 

8.7          The Registrar of the JCA has been asked to simultaneously circulate a copy of this decision. It will be necessary for the Committee to now consider the question of penalty.  A question arises as to whether a hearing should be scheduled for this or whether the question of penalty can be dealt with by the exchange of written submissions. As to which course might be appropriate both counsel are asked to set out the view which they take. A brief explanation of the position is to be sent in writing to the Registrar of the JCA within 72 hours of the notification of this decision and in the event that there is not agreement or if clarification is required a telephone conference will be arranged.

DATED  this      9th  day of July 2008

 

M McKechnie

Chairman       

Document Actions