Jim Best’s solicitor has responded with anger to an announcement by racing’s ruling body about changes it plans to make in response to the bungling of his case. The British Horseracing Authority continues to refuse to explain the blunders that led to the quashing of a finding of guilt against Best in a “non-trier” case, provoking a strongly worded statement from Harry Stewart-Moore, who acts for the trainer.
The BHA clearly hoped for some praise as it outlined measures aimed at reassuring the sport about the independence of disciplinary panel members. The hearing in Best’s case was compromised by the presence on the panel of Matthew Lohn, a solicitor who, it emerged after the verdict, had been paid by the BHA for legal advice on other matters.
Measures announced by the BHA on Wednesday included the hiring of two senior barristers, Ian Mill QC, to review past cases heard by Lohn to advise on any necessary action, and Christopher Quinlan QC, to review the structure, composition and operation of the disciplinary panels. However, Stewart-Moore dismissed “this bizarrely self-congratulatory document” as “completely inadequate”.
“As things currently stand, it very much appears as though senior members of the BHA’s staff – including its senior internal lawyers – were fully aware of the fact that the BHA was paying Mr Lohn for well over two years while he sat as chairman of the independent disciplinary panel on numerous cases,” Stewart-Moore said. “It further appears that these individuals ignored clear warnings as to the extraordinary impropriety of that arrangement for at least a year.
“On the basis of the information that is currently available, it does not look as though any of this was an oversight or mistake on the part of the BHA. Put bluntly, there is therefore every possibility that senior individuals at the BHA acted in a manner that was either grossly incompetent or improper.”
Stewart-Moore added that it would be “completely unacceptable” for such individuals to remain in their roles without a full explanation of what had occurred. “It would appear quite possible that the very individuals whose conduct ought to be under review will be precisely the same individuals instructing the relevant barristers in relation to these reviews.
“The BHA’s ability to uphold integrity in horse racing currently looks to be hanging by a thread. The answer is not yet more defensive PR-speak and more reviews carried out on the BHA’s own terms. The answer is to explain precisely what happened with complete transparency before it’s too late.”
In response the BHA restated quotes issued earlier by its chief executive, Nick Rust. “The issues that have been raised in connection with our disciplinary processes primarily concern perceptions of fairness and the appearance of bias,” he said. “There have been no suggestions of actual bias against the disciplinary panel or its members. I have sought to act promptly and decisively to deal with concerns raised.”
Rust added that his new measures would “ensure that our sport and its participants can have the greatest confidence in the integrity of disciplinary cases, now and in the future”.
He went on: “We remain committed to publishing a full statement to set out the circumstances that led to the need for a re-hearing in the Jim Best case once that case is concluded. As the appeal board also identified, it is in the interests of racing and the general public that the Jim Best case is resolved on the basis of the evidence put before the disciplinary panel and we will not seek to do anything that has even the slightest chance of prejudicing its outcome.”
