Hillside Girl Enquiry Ajourned to September 14th
Published: 28 July 2004
Following consultation with the all the relevant parties and their legal representatives, the Jockey Club’s Disciplinary Panel issued the following statement:
After sitting late into the evening on the first two days and hearing evidence from over 20 witnesses, the Disciplinary Panel considered it would be impossible to hear the remaining evidence and reach a decision within the three days allocated. It therefore considered it would be in the interests of all concerned to adjourn the enquiry to Tuesday 14th September when it will hear closing submissions.
The hearing will continue throughout today prior to adjournment.
July 28th 2004
Notes for Editors:
1. Sitting on the Disciplinary Panel for the Hillside Girl enquiry are: Andrew Merriam (Chairman), Tim Bell and Jeremy Philips.
2. The charges being considered by the Disciplinary Panel in connection with the running of Hillside Girl at Carlisle on 15th June 2003 can be viewed below.
HILLSIDE GIRL ENQUIRY TO BE HELD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON MONDAY, TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY 26-28TH JULY 2004
10am – Alan Berry, Paul Bradley, Dale Jewett and Steve O’Sullivan
The Disciplinary Panel of the Jockey Club, on 26th, 27th and 28th July 2004, will hold an enquiry to consider whether or not Alan Berry, a licensed trainer, Paul Bradley, a licensed jockey, and Steve O’Sullivan, a blacksmith and former employee of Alan Berry, have all committed a breach of Rule 201 (v) by being guilty of or conspiring with each other for the commission of a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing, namely ensuring that HILLSIDE GIRL (IRE), a filly which was known or suspected of being lame in its left fore and therefore of having little chance of winning or being placed, should run at Carlisle on 15th June 2003 in the Fathers Day Novice Auction Stakes in the interests of bets layed in the ‘win’ and ‘placed’ betting exchange markets.
The Panel will also consider:
– whether or not Berry has committed breaches of Rule 220 (vii) (b) in respect of his providing the Carlisle Stewards with inaccurate information at the Enquiry held after the race, namely statements to the effect that HILLSIDE GIRL (IRE) had never had any veterinary problems and had always been fine at home, and Rule 220 (vii) (c), by omitting relevant information to the Carlisle Stewards at the same enquiry by failing to mention the visit to the yard and examination of the filly by the yard’s vet, Mr P Acton, on 5th June 2003, after which Mr Acton was of the view that the filly was lame and recommended to Berry that her left knee be x-rayed.
– whether or not Bradley, the rider of the filly at Carlisle and Berry’s apprentice jockey, has committed breaches of Rule 220 (vii) (b), by providing the Carlisle Stewards with inaccurate information at the Enquiry held after the race, namely statements to the effect that the filly had never shown any signs of lameness at home, had always been great and was a 100% great filly and Rule 220 (vii) (c), by omitting relevant information to the Carlisle Stewards at the same enquiry, by failing to mention the conversation he had had about the filly’s apparent lameness with the Starter, Mr Adie Smith, at the starting post immediately prior to the race, when he had been asked by Mr Smith if the filly was fit and replied that the filly was ok but that she was always a bit scratchy at home.
– whether or not Berry and Bradley, in light of possible breaches of the rules above, have committed a breach of Rule 220 (viii) by an overt act endeavouring to mislead the Stewards at Carlisle.
– whether or not Berry has committed a breach of Rule 51 (i), in respect of his failure to train with reasonable care and skill and with due regard to the safety of the horses in his charge, by allowing the filly, which he knew or should have known to be lame, to go untreated, and by allowing the filly to run at Carlisle when he knew or should have known that she was unfit.
– whether or not Berry has committed a breach of Rule 54 (ii), by failing to register Dale Jewett as a stable employee at his yard within 24 hours of the commencement of his employment.
– whether or not Steve O’Sullivan, an employee of Berry at the time has committed a breach of Rule 241 (i) (b) of the Rules of Racing, in respect of his hindering and obstructing a Jockey Club Investigating Officer engaged to carry out an investigation into the running and laying of the filly by refusing to answer questions put to him in various interviews.
– whether or not Dale Jewett, an amateur rider and working at Berry’s yard at the time (although not registered – see above) has committed a breach of Rule 201(v) by being guilty of a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing, namely using information known to him by reason of his position as a stable employee at Mr Berry’s yard, but not publicly available, that HILLSIDE GIRL(IRE) was or was suspected of being lame in its left fore and therefore had little chance of winning or being placed in the race at Carlisle on 15th June 2003, in the interests of bets layed by him in the “win” and “placed” betting exchange markets.
– whether or not Jewett has committed breaches of Rule 241 (i) (b), in respect of his hindering and obstructing a Jockey Club Investigating Officer, by falsely stating that he had placed a £20 bet on the filly to win and by omitting to mention when interviewed that he had successfully layed bets on the filly in the “win” and “placed” betting exchange markets, and Rule 220 (viii), by means of the aforementioned possible breach, endeavouring by an overt act to mislead an Official of the Jockey Club.
23rd July 2004
Notes for Editors:
1. The Panel for this enquiry will be: Andrew Merriam (Chairman), Tim Bell and Jeremy Philips.
2. In the race at Carlisle on 15th June 2003, Hillside Girl was pulled up before half way. Following the race, the local Stewards held an enquiry and interviewed both Alan Berry and Paul Bradley. Following their enquiry, the Stewards referred the matter to the Security Department for further investigation.
3. Following the Security Department’s investigation, it was announced on 8th March 2004 that the four listed above would be required to attend a Disciplinary Panel hearing.
4. Three days have been set aside for this hearing. Journalists will be kept in touch by the JC Press Office as to when the hearing may be near its conclusion.