Graeme McPherson will not present the case against Jim Best when the latter’s vexed disciplinary case comes to a rehearing later this month. McPherson has acted for the British Horseracing Authority from the outset in the Best case and is believed to have missed only one procedural hearing to this point but the ruling body has decided to use a different barrister in order to minimise possible controversy at the rehearing.
Best is accused of ordering the jockey Paul John to stop two horses in races last December, a charge he denies. The rehearing, starting on 21 November, is expected to last five days.
Asked to confirm the change, the BHA’s Robin Mounsey said: “Jim Best and his legal representatives have raised objections to the BHA’s decision to instruct Graeme McPherson QC to present this case. While we do not agree with their objections, we do not want the parties involved in this case to waste any time considering the matter, or to risk any further delay to the rehearing.
“Accordingly, the BHA has instructed Louis Weston to present its case. It is in the best interests of racing to ensure this case proceeds without delay and we will not allow any dispute about the choice of the BHA’s counsel to provide any possible reason or justification for further delay.”
The BHA has, in recent years, made regular use of McPherson in presenting its cases at disciplinary hearings. It does not accept there is anything inappropriate about hiring him while also being required to regulate him in his capacity as a licensed trainer and maintained that position in the face of controversy this summer.
In June, a BHA panel disqualified a Jamie Snowden-trained winner and awarded the race to the runner-up, trained by McPherson, who had presented his own argument in favour of that outcome. Snowden took to social media to complain about the regular working relationship between McPherson and the BHA, suggesting it raised a perception of bias.
In response, a BHA spokesman at that time noted McPherson “has won and lost cases when acting both for and against the BHA. He is subject to our disciplinary procedures, just like every other licensed participant.”
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of McPherson, who declined to comment when asked about the BHA’s decision not to use him in the Best rehearing. It is believed he remains instructed by the ruling body in at least one other case.
Best’s representatives are understood to have made sustained objections to McPherson’s involvement, noting in particular that McPherson and Best, both being trainers, are commercial rivals. They contend it is inappropriate for one trainer to present the prosecution case against another.
While the BHA maintains it is giving way only in the particular circumstances of the vexed Best case, any trainer facing disciplinary proceedings in the future and seeing McPherson on the other side of the room may be tempted to run a similar argument.
McPherson being substituted for Weston is only the latest personnel change in the buildup to the rehearing. The need for a rehearing was triggered by the discovery Matthew Lohn, a solicitor who chaired the original panel, had also been engaged to give private advice to the BHA, raising an appearance of bias; a completely new panel will be convened this time.
The BHA’s integrity director, Adam Brickell, left the regulator in September, insisting his departure was in no way related to the unfolding Best-related embarrassment. Brickell explained his March review of the department had resulted in his own role being marginalised.
