Graham Bradley Appeal Board Result

Published: 2 April 2003

NOTE: The Appeal Board are making publicly available their ‘Decisions and Reasons’ covering each of the days of Mr Bradley’s appeal.

In all there are three documents; the first dealing with the legality of the appeal hearing, the second with the specific breaches of the Rules considered by the Appeal Board and the third with the decisions and reasons given by the Appeal Board in relation to the penalty imposed upon Mr Bradley.

Documents I & II can be found under the heading Enquiry Results, the final document outlining the reasons relating to penalty can be found by clicking on the ‘News’ section (Press Releases) where it is reproduced alongside the Appeal Board Calendar notice. All three documents are signposted on the Jockey Club’s home page.

RESULT OF GRAHAM BRADLEY’S APPEAL HEARD BY THE APPEAL BOARD ON TUESDAY 14TH JANUARY, MARCH 31ST AND 1ST APRIL 2003

Graham Bradley

The Appeal Board of the Jockey Club on 14th January, 31st March and 1st April 2003 considered an appeal lodged by Mr G Bradley, a former licensed jockey, against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee following its enquiry on 27th, 28th and 29th November 2002 whereby:

1. the Committee found Mr Bradley to be in breach of:

(i) Rule 204(iv) by giving or offering to give on various dates during the term of his licence information concerning horses entered in races under the Rules of Racing in return for monetary consideration, other than the receipt of a reasonable fee for giving an interview to the Press or other legitimate news gathering organisation for the purposes of general publication; and/or

(ii) Rule 62(ii)(c) by receiving presents in connection with a race on various occasions during the term of his licence from persons other than the Owner of the horse ridden by him in that race;

(iii) Rule 220(vii)(b) by providing false information to the Licensing Committee of the Jockey Club on 21 June 1999, namely statements to the effect that he had never been asked by Mr Brian Brendan Wright whether a particular horse would win or not win, and had never done anything wrong with Mr Brian Brendan Wright; and

(iv) Rule 220(viii) by means of the statements mentioned above, endeavouring by an overt act to mislead the members of the Licensing Committee;

(v) Rule 220(iii) by allowing to be published in his autobiography, ‘The Wayward Lad’, a story that on his own admission was wholly untrue, in which he had described an attempt by him to have the 1987 Cheltenham Gold Cup abandoned for the benefit of Mr Brian Brendan Wright;

(vi) Rule 140 by entering the Weighing Room without special leave of the Stewards at Cheltenham on 16 November 2001 and at Newbury on 1 December 2001.

2. the Committee declared Mr Bradley to be a disqualified person for eight years from Saturday, 7th December 2002 in respect of the breaches of Rules 204(iv), 62(ii) (c), 220(vii) (b), and 220(viii); and imposed fines of £2,500 and £400 respectively upon Mr Bradley with regard to his breaches of Rule 220(iii) and 140.

Mr Bradley’s grounds of appeal were:

a) a challenge to the legality of the disciplinary process on the basis that the Jockey Club’s procedures lack the appearance of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and in common law; and on the basis that in the particular circumstances of the case there was, objectively, a real possibility of bias on behalf of both the Disciplinary Committee and the Appeal Board;

b) that all the findings against him were wrongly made and the penalties imposed were disproportionate; in particular, he alleged that the main penalty imposed, namely that of declaring him to be a disqualified person for eight years, was disproportionate and should be quashed.

Having considered the evidence, including the papers that were before the Disciplinary Committee, a transcript of the original hearing and both written and oral legal submissions on behalf of both Mr Bradley and the Jockey Club, the Board did not consider that Mr Bradley, under a), had established that the disciplinary process was unlawful and should be suspended. With respect to b) Mr Bradley chose in the event not to pursue his appeals against the Committee’s finding of a breach of Rule 220(iii), and Rule 140 in respect of his entering the Weighing Room at Newbury on 1st December. The Board found Mr Bradley:

1) on his own admission through his evidence at Southampton Crown Court on 28th September 2001, at the trial of Mr Barrie Wright, to have been in breach of Rules 62(ii) (c) and 204(iv) between 1989 and 1999, but that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that such breaches were taking place before 1989;

2) notwithstanding the circumstances under which the statements were made, to be in breach of Rules 220(vii) (b) and 220(viii);

3) to be in breach of Rule 140, in that he entered the Weighing Room at Cheltenham on 16th November 2001 without special leave of the Stewards.

For the purposes of penalty, the Disciplinary Committee dealt collectively with counts 1) and 2), the Board considered that each count should be dealt with separately and in respect of Mr Bradley’s breach of Rule 220(vii) (b) and 220(viii) imposed a fine of £500 and in respect of Mr Bradley’s breach of Rule 62(ii) (c) and 204(iv), substituted a five year disqualification for the eight years imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. In respect of count 3) the Board accepted that there were mitigating circumstances over Mr Bradley’s presence in the Weighing Room at Cheltenham and substituted the fine of £200 with one of £75. In the light of Mr Bradley’s decision not to pursue his appeals against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings of a breach of Rule 220 (iii) and Rule 140 in respect of his entering the Weighing Room at Newbury, the Board confirmed the fines of £2,500 and £200 respectively.

April 2nd 2003

Notes:

1. The fine under 220 (iii) relates to Graham Bradley allowing to be published in his autobiography, ‘The Wayward Lad’, a story that on his own admission was wholly untrue, in which he had described an attempt by him to have the 1987 Cheltenham Gold Cup abandoned for the benefit of Mr Brian Brendan Wright.

2. The Appeal Board are making publicly available their ‘Decisions and Reasons’ covering each of the three days of Mr Bradley’s appeal, including all the evidence and arguments that were put before them.

3. The ‘Decisions and Reasons’ will be posted on the Jockey Club website and will also be distributed as word documents on email.

4.Graham Bradley’s period of disqualification is due to take effect 28 days after the completion of the hearing, on 30th April 2003. In the event of High Court proceedings being issued by Mr Bradley before 30th April 2003 challenging the decision of Jockey Appeal Board the period of disqualification would not take effect from that date. The disqualification period would be put on hold pending the outcome of an initial court hearing which would be heard within a further six weeks.

5. The Chairmen also ordered that Graham Bradley pay £1,000 towards the Jockey Club’s costs of the hearing.