Jamie Stier can be named as the official at racing’s ruling body who, more than a year ago, rejected concerns about perceptions of bias in the disciplinary panel which have recently caused such mortification to his employer. His decision to wave away objections made by the Professional Jockeys Association has resulted in the quashing of a recent verdict against the trainer Jim Best, several emergency measures aimed at shoring up confidence in the system and a cost to racing likely to run into six figures.
The British Horseracing Authority has so far refused to explain anything about the process that led it into such a mess. However, the Guardian has now seen a copy of a letter dated 15 April 2015 in which Stier explains the regulator’s position at the time.
Stier is the BHA’s director of raceday regulation and responsible, among other things, for overseeing membership of disciplinary panels. His letter is addressed to Paul Struthers, the chief executive of the PJA, who had expressed numerous concerns about the panel system in submissions made privately to the BHA, submissions which came to public attention only in the past month.
In his letter, Stier acknowledges that the solicitor Matthew Lohn, in regular use as chairman of BHA panels, had also been instructed to act on the regulator’s behalf “on two specific matters relating to medical issues”. He adds that those issues were unrelated to any matter discussed before Lohn at disciplinary hearings and therefore did not have to be disclosed, which is why the BHA had not voluntarily revealed that Lohn had been so employed.
“The BHA is satisfied that it is appropriate for Mr Lohn to continue to sit on the disciplinary panel in the future,” Stier wrote, “and nothing raised in your letter has altered this position.”
Stier concludes his comments by saying Lohn would not be used for panels likely to hear matters related to the medical issues on which the solicitor had advised the BHA.
Elsewhere in his letter, Stier tackles the PJA’s concerns over perceptions of bias in the disciplinary panel and an apparent absence of independence. “The BHA does not accept [these concerns] to be evidence of any bias, perceived or real,” Stier insists.
“We believe the correct test for establishing whether there is an appearance of bias is ‘whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased’. The BHA is comfortable that the current composition of the disciplinary panel passes this test and that the overall disciplinary process is one that provides a fair process.”
Stier’s breezy assertion that nothing was amiss looks thoroughly misjudged in light of recent events. Best, whose case was heard by a Lohn-chaired panel, had a finding of guilt against him quashed a fortnight ago by an appeal board specifically because the BHA’s non-disciplinary payments to Lohn raised a perception of bias. The appeal board also ruled that the reasons supplied by Lohn’s panel were insufficient to support the verdict.
Stier’s letter does not say whether he had taken advice on the issue from Adam Brickell or Hannah McLean, the two senior solicitors on the BHA staff. All three remain in post.
While the BHA announced a flurry of activities last week aimed at restoring confidence in the disciplinary system, it stolidly refused to address the question of what had gone so badly wrong or why. It engaged one QC to review cases heard by Lohn in case any action was necessary and hired another to review the composition and processes of the disciplinary panel. But neither QC has it as any part of his brief to examine the mistakes that led the BHA into such a mess.
Pressed once more to elaborate on Stier’s letter, a BHA spokesman said: “Having taken leading counsel’s advice on this matter, we have taken the decision not to make any further comment, to avoid prejudicing the fair resolution of the proceedings.” A full report is promised after the rehearing of the Best case, for which no date has yet been fixed. September has been mooted as the earliest date at which the relevant lawyers will be free to convene.
But it remains unclear why any report on this subject would prejudice the rehearing of the Best case and indeed Best’s solicitors have argued that the BHA should provide an immediate and detailed explanation of the mistakes that led to the quashing of the verdict against him.
Other lawyers who commonly present defence cases at BHA hearings take the view that an immediate explanation is an essential first step if confidence in the system is to be restored.
Struthers had made his initial comments by letter to the BHA in February 2015. “It is with regret that we have to confirm that the PJA, its members and its advisors are close to completely losing confidence in the disciplinary panel,” he wrote. “Even if that confidence is not completely lost, we receive concerns from jockeys that they believe that the process does not appear to be fair or that they are not always afforded a fair hearing.
“We understand that proposition will not be accepted by the BHA, but … the BHA must accept that it is the view held by jockeys and the PJA and must address those concerns … We do not suggest that the panel or its members are actually biased but that the perception of bias and the absence of independence regularly exists.”
