Racing’s ruling body persisted in its refusal to explain the mistakes that led to the recent quashing of the verdict in the Jim Best case, even while announcing interim measures aimed at restoring faith in its battered disciplinary process. The British Horseracing Authority has been struggling for two months to defend its reputation as a regulator, which took another knock on Wednesday with the release of the Best appeal judgment, detailing the holes in the original verdict against him.
“The disciplinary panel’s reasons were clearly insufficient to support its decision,” the appeal board concluded. “The reasons do not make it apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost because they do not deal adequately, or in some significant respects at all, with the evidence and arguments presented on behalf of Mr Best.”
Specifically, the appeal board criticised the original panel for dealing “in a cursory fashion” with evidence presented in order to cast doubt on the credibility of the sole witness against Best, the jockey Paul John. The appeal board added it was surprised to see no reference in the original decision to an exchange of emails between lawyers acting for John and for the BHA that led to the jockey giving evidence against Best.
“These were clearly of potential relevance on the issue of Mr John’s credibility,” the appeal board said.
The “non-trier” verdict against Best was quashed, along with a four-year ban, because of the insufficiency of those reasons and also because of the presence on the original panel of the solicitor Matthew Lohn, who had been paid for other work by the BHA, giving rise to a perception of bias. The case will be reheard before a new panel on a date to be confirmed, with speculation the lawyers involved may not be free to take part before September.
Shortly after the appeal board’s reasons were released, the BHA announced a number of actions aimed at demonstrating that future panels will be free from perceptions of bias. Lohn, who has been identified as the only panel member to have been paid for non-disciplinary work by the BHA, will not be used until the outcome of a review of the whole process.
Sports Resolutions, a company that has provided panel members to other sporting regulators, will provide chairpersons for the BHA’s panels for especially complex cases. Each panel member will be required, before each hearing, to sign a declaration of independence.
The BHA has sought legal advice on the mess it has so far created. Ian Mill QC will review past cases involving Lohn and advise the BHA on any necessary action. There is no suggestion of those cases having been compromised by actual bias, only the possible perception of same. Christopher Quinlan QC will review the structure, composition and operation of the disciplinary panels, aiming to report by mid-September.
Paul Struthers, the chief executive of the Professional Jockeys’ Association, said: “I really welcome this acceleration of action in a number of areas that had already been highlighted and also the steps that are being taken as interim measures. We look forward to engaging in and taking part in the review.”
It was Struthers who first told the BHA, more than a year ago, it should not be using Lohn on panels while paying him for other work. “I don’t understand why the BHA won’t address the question of why our concerns were dismissed,” he said. “I understand they’ll address that question in due course but I would address it now. Whatever advice they took at the time was wrong and that was a costly mistake.”
Lawyers who regularly defend clients at BHA hearings have also expressed concern on this subject. They make the point that, until it is known why the BHA made such an obvious blunder, fears will persist of comparable blunders being made in relation to other cases by those responsible.
The appeal board noted Best had come within days of losing his business, because the original panel did not only ban him for four years but also ordered that owners should remove their horses from his yard within the week. When Best applied for a stay of his ban pending his appeal, the BHA argued vigorously against the stay being granted. It took more than a month from that point before the regulator conceded the original verdict would have to be quashed.
That issue drew further ire from Harry Stewart-Moore, Best’s solicitor. “As the appeal board reasons point out, even after being informed that Mr Best had become aware of Mr Lohn’s heavily conflicted position, the BHA fought tooth and nail to oppose the application for a stay of the penalty that the disciplinary panel had wrongfully imposed,” Stewart-Moore said.
“Had the BHA been successful in opposing the stay, Mr Best’s yard would have been shut down in late April, only for it to emerge, far too late in the day, that the disqualification should not have been allowed to stand.
This is extremely disappointing from an organisation that is, after all, responsible for upholding the integrity of the sport and the continued lack of an explanation continues to be a source of real concern to us.”
