On 19 November 2011, following a protest hearing, RWWA Stewards upheld the protest of 2nd versus 1st, concerning LUCKYGRAY and HE’S REMARKABLE and thus amended the placings accordingly resulting in LUCKYGRAY being awarded the race.
The connections of HE’S REMARKABLE by Notice of Appeal dated 2 December 2011 sought leave to appeal the decision of the Stewards on the basis that:
The relegation from first to second was contrary to the evidence and not reasonably open to the Stewards on the evidence; and
The decision making protest denied procedural fairness resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The leave application was supported by 57 sequential still photographs which were said to include the incident.
The matter came to hearing before the Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal (RPAT) on 24 January 2012.
Senior Counsel for the connections of HE’S REMARKABLE presented a comprehensive argument which included several propositions including:
There was a ‘significant cloud’ as to whether the Stewards achieved the correct outcome
As the home party protested it called into question ‘the supervision role’ of the Stewards
The erratic history of BIG TED
In view of the fresh evidence the Tribunal was in a significantly advantageous position compared to the Stewards to evaluate the matter
Following submissions in response presented by senior counsel for the Stewards, the Chairman dismissed the application seeking leave to appeal.
The Chairman of the RPAT published on 7 June 2012 the reasons for not allowing the matter to proceed to an appeal. Those reasons included the following in conclusion:
“In all of the circumstances the manner in which the hearing was conducted did not result in procedural fairness being denied.” The Chairman was “satisfied that there was no merit in the argument raised as to the lack of natural justice.”
“…an eminently appropriate panel was engaged to address this important matter which required peremptory resolution before the next race.”
In the Chairman’s opinion, “it clearly was open to the Stewards on the evidence to reach the conclusion which they did as to the cause and effect of the incident. The amount of interference was considerable.”
“there was no ‘cloud’ as to the correctness of the decision.” by the stewards.
“The fresh evidence was not persuasive or compelling. It did not alter the appropriateness of the outcome”
A full copy of the reasons is available here.
GM Racing Integrity
12 June 2012