Edward O'Connell and Another v Turf Club and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Brian McGovern |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 175 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 03 April 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 175
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 19A
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 19C
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 20
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 22
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 25
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 272
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 273(xiii)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 273(vi)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 273(viii)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 273(ix)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 273(xiv)(5)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 212(A)(i)
RULES OF RACING & IRISH NATIONAL HUNT STEEPLECHASE RULES 2013 RULE 212(A)(ii)
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S39
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S45
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S62
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1
CONSTITUTION ART 34.1
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
CONSTITUTION ART 37
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 PART III
GREENBAND INVESTMENTS v BRUTON & ORS UNREP CLARKE 30.1.2009 2009/24/5829 2009 IEHC 67
BOLGER v OSBORNE & ORS 2000 1 ILRM 250 2000/1/288
MURPHY v TURF CLUB 1989 IR 171 1989/7/2030
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S45(2)
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S2
HORSE & GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2001 S6
BEIRNE v CMSR OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1993 ILRM 1 1992/10/3136
EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD & ORS v AG 1970 IR 317
LYNCH, STATE v COONEY & AG 1982 IR 337
CURTIS v AG & REVENUE CMRS 1985 IR 458 1986 ILRM 428 1985/7/1908
OSMANOVIC v DPP & ORS 2006 3 IR 504 2006/47/10113 2006 IESC 50
R v DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE JOCKEY CLUB, EX PARTE AGA KHAN 1993 1 WLR 909 1993 2 AER 853
IRISH HORSERACING INDUSTRY ACT 1994 S7
MORAN & ORS v O'SULLIVAN & ORS UNREP CARROLL 18.3.2003 2003/38/9076
CITYVIEW PRESS LTD & FOGARTY v CHOMHAIRLE OILIUNA & ORS 1980 IR 381
MAHER & ORS v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS 2001 2 IR 139
JOHN GRACE FRIED CHICKEN LTD & ORS v CATERING JOINT LABOUR COMMITTEE & OR S 2011 3 IR 21 1 2011 1 ILRM 392 2011/28/7579 2011 IEHC 277
CONSTITUTION ART 37.1
MCDONALD v BORD NA GCON & AG 1965 IR 217
STATE, PLUNKETT & PONDERWOOD SOCIETY LTD v REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES & AG (NO 1) 1998 4 IR 1
Judicial Review – Sports Law – Horse Racing – Rules of Racing – Ultra Vires – Horseracing Industry Act 1994 –Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 – Constitution of Ireland 1937.
Facts: It was alleged that the applicants, a jockey and horse trainer, had breached the Rules of Racing. They were informed that the allegations against them would be considered by the respondent”s Referral Committee. Consequently, the applicants brought these proceedings for judicial review to obtain the following reliefs; a declaration that the Rules of Racing were made ultra vires the respondent, a declaration that sections 39, 45 and/or 62 were invalid pursuant to the Constitution and a declaration that the allegations amounted to extraterritorial criminal offences for which the respondent could not conduct a trial.
Held by McGovern J, that before the introduction of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994 as amended by the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001, the respondent would have been considered a voluntary organisation governed by the law of contract. However, its incorporation into the Racing Regulatory Body, which was established under the Act of 1994, had put the respondent onto a statutory footing and as a result it was amenable to judicial review.
After finding that the applicants had locus standi, McGovern J. had to consider if they were both estopped from bringing judicial proceedings on the basis that they had voluntarily agreed to be bound by the rules of the respondent. He held that as the respondent had been put onto a statutory footing and was therefore amenable to judicial review, the applicants could not be estopped from pursuing their judicial review claim just because they had agreed to be bound by the respondent”s rules.
Regarding the issue of whether or not the respondent was exercising a delegated legislative function, McGovern J. found that although the respondent is not a stautory body which can make it”s own delegated legislation, it had been given general functions by the Oireachtas under the 1994 Act as amended the by 2001 Act allowing it to make and enforce the Rules of Racing.
As regards the argument that ss. 39, 45 and 62 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994 were invalid pursuant to the Constitution on the grounds that they had delegated judicial powers to the respondent, McGovern J. rejected this argument and held that the respondent did not exercise a judicial function as the above sections of the 1994 Act did not amount to ‘administration of justice.’
Finally as regards the claim that the respondent was precluded from conducting a trial of the allegations as they amounted to extraterritorial criminal offences, McGovern J. held that this could not suceed as neither of the applicants were being tried on criminal charges.
Relief refused
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered on the 3rd day of April, 2014
1. This application by way of judicial review comes before the court arising out of an inquiry conducted by the respondent into the conduct of a horserace at Downpatrick in Northern Ireland. The first named applicant is a jockey and the second named applicant is a racehorse trainer, both licensed to carry on their respective trades by the respondent.
2. It was alleged that a suspicious betting pattern, in particular, the placing of a Stg.£10.000 "lay bet" with the British bookmaker, Betfair, was evident relating to the running of a horse named 'Yachvilli' in a race held at Downpatrick on 21 st September, 2011. The horse had been ridden by the first named applicant and trained by the second named applicant. It was further alleged that the first named applicant had failed to ride the horse in such a manner as to allow it to run to its maximum ability in the race, contrary to the Rules of Racing (the "Rules").
3. The applicants were respectively interviewed by officers of the respondent on dates in October 2011, June 2012 and December 2012, in relation to these matters. By letters dated 16 th July, 2013. the respondent advised the applicants that the respondent's Referrals Committee (the "Committee") would, on 3 rd September, 2013, consider the allegations against the applicants and three other individuals alleged to have an involvement in the matters at issue. The applicants were served under cover of same with papers prepared by the respondent, including a case summary. 'Topics of Inquiry', setting out particulars of the alleged breaches of the Rules, other items of evidence (including copies of the race video and recordings of the race) and copies of the Rules that were alleged to have been breached.
4. By letter dated 28 th August, 2013, the solicitors for the applicants informed the respondent of their intention to institute these proceedings. On 29 th August, 2013, leave was granted by Charleton J. to apply for the following reliefs by way of judicial review:-
(i) A declaration by way of judicial review that the Rules of Racing were made ultra vires the Respondent and/or without jurisdiction and/or otherwise than in accordance with law;
(ii) in the alternative, a declaration by way of judicial review that the Rules of Racing hereinafter particularised were made ultra viresthe respondent and/or without jurisdiction and/or otherwise than in accordance with law: 19A, 19C, 20, 22, 25, 272, 273(xiii), 273(vi), 273(viii), 273(ix), 273(xiv)(5), 212(a)(i) and/or 212(a)(ii);
(iii) if necessary, a declaration by way of judicial review that sections 39 and/or 45 and/or 62 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994, as amended, are invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and in particular. Article 15.2.1° thereof;
(iv) if necessary, a declaration by way of judicial review that sections 39, 45 and/or 62 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994, as amended, are invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and in particular. Article 34.1 thereof;
(v) a declaration that the allegation made contrary to Rule 273(ix) of the Rules of Racing amount to an allegation of an extraterritorial criminal offence in respect of which the respondent is precluded from conducting a trial by virtue of Article 38.1 of the Constitution.
5. Charleton J. refused a stay on the proceedings of the Committee and the Committee did, in fact, consider the matter on 4 th and 5 th September, 2013. An application to adjourn the hearing was refused. The applicants both tendered oral evidence to the Committee, the first named applicant participating by means of internet telephony, as he was at the time in Australia taking part in a racing event. The Committee completed its deliberations and informed the applicants of its decision. In the course of the hearing before me, there was some disagreement between the parties as to whether the results of the Committee's deliberations should be published in this judgment. As the Committee's conclusions do not affect the issues which I have to decide, I do not intend to refer to them.
6. This application raises interesting and important issues as to the constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connell v The Turf Club
...Racing were not ultra vires the respondent's powers and that ss. 39, 45 and 62 were not invalid having regard to the Constitution (see [2014] IEHC 175). The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondent and the notice party each sought to vary various aspects of the High Court ju......
-
North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd v an Bord Pleanála
...constituted such a special circumstance warranting intervention by way of prohibition. 199 Osmanovic was cited in O'Connell v. Turf Club [2014] IEHC 175 (Unreported, High Court, 3rd April, 2014), per McGovern J. at para. 21, although that was a case where the applicants had, in fact, been ......