Matthews v Irish Coursing Club

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-HC 2479
• Docket Number: [1990 No. 192 J.R.],No. 192 J.R./1990
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1993

1992 WJSC-HC 2479

THE HIGH COURT

No. 192 J.R./1990

MATTHEWS v. IRISH COURSING CLUB

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

BRENDAN MATTHEWS

APPLICANT

AND

THE IRISH COURSING CLUB

RESPONDENTS

AND

URSULA HOGAN

NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

GREYHOUND INDUSTRY ACT 1958 S26(2)

GREYHOUND INDUSTRY ACT 1958 S43(3)

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS V MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE 1985 AC 374

DEMETRIADES V GLASGOW CORPORATION 1951 1 AER 457

RSC O.84 r26(4)

EGAN, STATE V GARDA DISCIPLINARY BOARD 1986 IR 642

CASSIDY V MIN INDUSTRY & COMMERCE 1978 IR 297

SHARPE V DUBLIN CITY & CO MANAGER 1989 IR 701

GREYHOUND INDUSTRY ACT 1958 S26(1)

ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORPORATION 1948 1 KB 223

Synopsis:

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Irrationality - Greyhounds - Coursing - Control - Statutory duties and powers - Winning dog doped - Decision that owner should retain prize - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 84, r. 26 - Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, s. 26, schedule (article 15) - (1990/192 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 31/1/92) - [1993] 1 I.R. 346

|Matthews v. Irish Coursing Club|

1 Judgment delivered the 31st day of January, 1992, by O'Hanlon J.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2 The facts of the present case are simple and straightforward. They are concerned with the outcome of the top event in the Irish Coursing Calendar for the year 1990 - the J. P. McManus Irish Cup, held at Clounanna, Co. Limerick, under Irish Coursing Club Rules on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, February 23, 24 and 25, 1990. In addition to the trophy, the prize-money for the winning dog was £8,000. A total of 64 entries were accepted, the entry fee being £100. By a process of elimination the field was reduced to four, and the semi-final and final stages were run off on the last day of the meeting.

3 The Applicant, Brendan Matthews, was fortunate enough to have two dogs reach the final stages. One of them lost out to "Flashing Crystal", a greyhound owned by the Notice Party in the present proceedings, Ursula Hogan, in the semi-final, and the other - "Needham Bar", - having won through to the final, was beaten in the final by "Flashing Crystal", which was then declared the winner of the trophy and prize-money.

4 A urine sample taken from the winning dog immediately after the final course established that the dog had been "doped" with stimulants and prohibited drugs, namely, Amphetamine and Niketamide, and the Certificate of Analysis declaring that the sample had been found positive for these drugs was issued by Professor M. B. Lambert of the Equine Forensic Unit, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College, Dublin on the 8th March 1990.

5 This was considered at a meeting of the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Irish Coursing Club, meeting at Clonmel on the 14th March, 1990, which was attended at the request of the Sub-Committee, by Mr. Muiris Dromey, Veterinary Surgeon. The following is an extract from the Minutes of the meeting, which were made available on discovery to the Applicant's Solicitors:-

6 Drug Testing: Mr. Muiris Dromey, Veterinary Surgeon, joined the meeting.

7 Copies of Analyst's report on samples taken were distributed to the meeting and to Mr. Dromey who explained to the meeting what the substances found were.

8 Methylamphetamine is administered by injection only while Amphetamine is obtained in tablet form. Methylsalicylate is an aspirin type product. All are restricted substances. A Department of Health licence is required to obtain these drugs. It is a civil offence to have them in your possession without this licence.

9 Mr. Dromey said Amphetamil is a stimulant of the central nervous system and he said Dr. Lambert had expressed surprise at its discovery because of its restricted use.

10 Asked if it would be possible to give these drugs a couple of days prior to the National Meeting which would cause the samples to show positive, Mr. Dromey said no. The effect of the drugs wears off within a very short time, within a quarter of an hour or half an hour.

11 Mr. Dromey could not instance a case where a vet would administer the above drugs. They are not obtained in tonics or vitamins. Methylamphetamine is fairly well restricted in its use, he said. It is not freely available in this country. It would be illegal to put it into a tonic.

12 Niketamide is a pure stimulant and found in nothing else. Asked if it is used for veterinary purposes, Mr. Dromey said, yes, it would be used by an Anaesthetist to bring an animal out of an anaesthetic.

13 The Secretary outlined to the meeting the security steps taken with the samples. All handlers were present at the initial sealing of each sample. Some owners had requested that the sample be split but no further action was requested with these samples by the owners.

14 Mr. Dromey was thanked for his attendance and was asked to attend the next meeting of the General Purposes Sub-Committee.

15 Rule 88 of the Rules of the Irish Coursing Club reads as follows:-

16 88. - Use of Drugs Prohibited. A - The stewards of the meeting shall have power at any time to order an examination by a Veterinary Surgeon of any greyhound entered for a meeting or which has run at a meeting .....

17 B - Any person who shall administer or cause or attempt to cause to be administered to a greyhound for any purpose which the Executive Committee may consider improper, drugs or stimulants or obnoxious substances by any method whatsoever, may be warned off or suspended and/or may be subjected to such other disciplinary action as the Executive Committee may think fit, and the greyhound concerned may be disqualified and may forfeit any prize money won. Should such prize money be forfeited, the forfeited prize money must be distributed back amongst the greyhounds beaten in the stake by the disqualified greyhound or greyhounds.

18 The Notice Party, Mrs. Hogan, attended the meeting accompanied by her Solicitor, Mr. William Keane, and gave evidence. Asked who was in control of the greyhound during the running of the Irish Cup meeting, she replied: "I am in control of this particular greyhound usually."

19 The following passage from the note of the proceedings is also relevant:-

20 Secretary: Mr. Keane, Rule 88B mentions drugs or stimulants. They are both drugs and stimulants.

21 B. Keane: We have no list. It is only a small point. The control of the greyhound was her responsibility.

22 T. Lynch: I understand you and Mrs. Hogan were involved with this dog during the course of the Irish Cup. Would you be quite sure there was nobody else got involved with the dog during the time?

23 Mrs. Hogan:

24 B. Keane: We never made allegations about dogs being nobbled.

25 M. Long: Have you any explanation for the presence of these drugs?

26 B. Keane: No explanation for drugs. The case is flawed... It is the Committee's decision are the procedures carried out properly. If the Committee find out the procedures have not been carried out my clients are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

27 The Sub-Committee found the Notice Party, Mrs. Hogan, guilty of breach of Rule 88 and imposed penalties as follows:-

28 Prize-money to be forfeited. A fine of £1000 is imposed, mitigated to £500. The greyhound to be suspended until 1st January 1991, from racing, coursing and stud duties.

29 Notice of Appeal to the Executive Committee of the Irish Coursing Club was given on behalf of the Notice Party on the 5th April, 1990, and the appeal was heard on the 6th June, 1990. The hearing was attended by the Notice Party, accompanied by her husband and her Solicitor Mr. Keane. The note of the proceedings includes the following passage:

30 Mrs. Hogan could not account for the presence of the substances found in the sample.

31 Having heard evidence of identification of the greyhounds prior to the taking of samples, to the taking, sealing and dispatch of the sample to Trinity College for analysis, having heard evidence of the safe receipt and analysis of the sample by Professor Lambert, cross-examination of witnesses by Mr. Keane and the Secretary, all present including the Secretary, left the room.

32 The members of the Committee considered the evidence they had heard following which they summoned the parties and announced that they had decided that Mrs. Hogan was in breach of Rule 88 of the Rules of the Irish Coursing Club and asked Mr. Keane if he wished to make any representations on behalf of his client.

33 Mr. Keane said, without prejudice to his client that she is a respectable person who is not a criminal and he asked that the sentence be kept as moderate as possible.

34 The Committee continued in session to decide on penalties in each of the cases.

35 Subsequently, the Secretary was called in by the Committee and was informed that the Committee in each case had decided to impose a fine amounting to 50% of the prize money won by the greyhound involved, subject to a minimum fine of £1,000. No penalties were imposed on any of the greyhounds involved.

36 The Chairman said that he wished it to be placed on record that the discussion on penalties was carried out with the utmost openness and integrity.

37 Prior to that meeting the Applicant in the present proceedings, Brendan Matthews, had written to the Secretary of the Irish Coursing Club on the 30th March, 1990, in the following terms:-

38 Dear Gerry,

39 Thank you for your recent letter enclosing the cheques for the prize money in relation to my dogs running at the Irish Cup Meeting at Clounanna this year.

40 However, as per our telephone conversation on today's date, I am not encashing these cheques until the matter of the disputed prize money is resolved.

41 Furthermore, if the matter is not resolved in my favour in accordance with the Rules of the ICC, and more specifically Rule 88, I must advise with regret that you...