The following document outlines the Appeal Board’s findings and reasons regarding an application for a stay of penalty by Paul Gilligan in relation to the finding against him by the Disciplinary Panel on 21 and 22 March 2016. The Panel’s penalties and their reasons for penalties were later published on 29 April.
1. The time limit for the application for a stay is lengthened so as to validate the application.
2. The decision of the Disciplinary Panel is stayed until such time as the Appeal Board decision in the case of Mr Jim Best has been determined and reasons given.
3. The Appellant must pay the requisite deposit of £800 by close of business on 17 May 2016, failing which the stay will automatically terminate.
4. Both parties to have liberty to apply to vary the terms of this order.
By its decision of 28 April 2016 a Disciplinary Panel found Mr Paul Gilligan, a trainer, to be in breach of Rule (A)29 and disqualified him for 6 months from 29 April 2016 to 28 October 2016.
Mr Gilligan, by a letter from his solicitor dated 6 May 2016, has given notice of his wish to appeal against that decision. That letter complies with paras 16.3.1, 16.3.2 and 16.3.2 of Schedule (A)7, but it appears that the deposit of £800 required by para 16.3.4 has not been paid.
By an email of 3 May 2016 Mr Gilligan’s solicitor requested a stay of the decision of the Disciplinary Panel pending the determination of the appeal of Mr Jim Best against another Disciplinary Panel decision. Mr Best’s appeal is due to be heard by the Appeal Board later this month. One of Mr Best’s grounds of appeal, under para 14.2, is that the hearing that gave rise to the decision was substantially unfair and prejudicial to him in that the Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel, Mr Matthew Lohn, a solicitor, acts, or has acted, professionally for the BHA. Mr Lohn was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel that heard Mr Gilligan’s case, and Mr Gilligan has raised the same para 14.2 ground in his notice of appeal.
The BHA does not oppose Mr Gilligan’s application for a stay.
Under para 15.3 an application for a stay must be made within 48 hours of the decision. The application in this case was out of time. However, the Chairman of an Appeal Board has power under para 24.1.2 to lengthen any time limit.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to stay the decision of the Disciplinary Panel since the ground of appeal under para 14.2 is that same as that to be decided by the Appeal Board in the Best case. I am also satisfied that the 48-hour time limit should be lengthened so as to validate Mr Gilligan’s application.
In view of the fact that Mr Gilligan has not yet paid the deposit required by para 16.3.4 it is appropriate that the stay should terminate if he fails to do so within 7 further days.
Notes to Editors:
1. The Appeal Board Chairman considering this matter is George Bartlett QC
2. The Disciplinary Panel’s findings can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/disciplinary_notices/disciplinary-panel-reasons-regarding-paul-gilligan/