Racing’s ruling body has defended its regular hiring of the barrister Graeme McPherson QC, who is also a licensed racehorse trainer. McPherson is often used to present the British Horseracing Authority’s case at its disciplinary panel hearings, a fact that added to the ire of his rival trainer Jamie Snowden last week when a panel disqualified a winner Snowden had trained in favour of McPherson’s runner-up.
Snowden took to social media after the outcome and pointed out the regular working relationship between McPherson and the BHA, suggesting that it raised a perception of bias. The BHA has suffered months of bad publicity over such perceptions recently and disciplinary panel verdicts dating back two years are now being re-examined in light of the news that Matthew Lohn, a solicitor who chaired panels, was also being paid separately by the BHA for legal advice.
As a result of the case involving Snowden, the BHA has been pressed to consider whether it is appropriate for it to give quite so much work to someone who is also licensed and regulated by it as a racing professional. The ruling body is under intense pressure, following the Lohn debacle, to show that it regulates with demonstrable fairness and there was an initial indication that perhaps its use of McPherson might be considered by a review of disciplinary processes due to report in the autumn.
However, Robin Mounsey, a BHA spokesman, has now said the authority is comfortable with its continued use of McPherson. “The BHA instructs Graeme McPherson as he is a qualified barrister with an in-depth knowledge of horseracing,” Mounsey said. “He has won and lost cases when acting both for and against the BHA. Mr McPherson has agreed to be bound by the rules of racing and is subject to our disciplinary procedures, just like every other licensed participant.”
There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on McPherson’s part. Approached for comment, he pointed out that, as a barrister, he is governed by the bar’s stringent code of conduct, which includes the famous cab rank rule, requiring a barrister to accept any instructions that are appropriate for his experience, seniority and field of practice.
“It is entirely a matter for the BHA who they instruct,” he said, noting that he has also represented jockeys and trainers appearing before BHA panels.
There is obvious appeal for the BHA in using McPherson, a highly regarded barrister who can cross-examine racing professionals secure in the knowledge that he is at least as familiar with the sport’s abstrusities as they are. Another QC, appearing before a BHA panel in 2013, was eventually told by the trainer John Gosden, “I think you don’t know enough about racing”. It was an incident that no one wants to repeat.
But last week’s case shows the potential for ill feeling if the BHA is perceived as developing too close a relationship with any licensed professional. In that case, McPherson appealed to the BHA over the result of a race at Worcester in which his Charlie Cook was second to Snowden’s Carrigkerry. He claimed the winner should not have run in Snowden’s name, having not been in that stable for the required 14 days.
Snowden said the 14 days began to run on the day Carrigkerry arrived in his yard, a position the BHA did not contest, after a certain amount of official dithering in the days before the hearing. But McPherson persuaded the panel that the day of the horse’s arrival in Snowden’s yard should not be counted and Carrigkerry was therefore disqualified.
Snowden responded saying he had lost faith in the BHA’s ability to apply justice. Among his criticisms of the ruling body was its refusal to grant him an adjournment in order to arrange representation by a solicitor. “They threw me into the disciplinary hearing against a trainer who’s a QC,” he told the Racing Post
McPherson also represented himself at an appeal hearing in 2011 after his Traditional Bob had been ruled a non-trier by the Chepstow stewards. After he presented evidence to the panel, including some footage of the race that had not been available to the stewards, the initial verdict against McPherson was quashed. The BHA offered no representation against McPherson’s appeal, a position its officials acknowledge as unusual but not unique.
