Dean McKeown case.

C

Colin Phillips

At the Start
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,268
Location
Talbot Green
Apparently someone thinks he is not guilty!

From the RP site:

DEAN McKEOWN was treated unfairly by the BHA and should not have been warned off, the High Court heard on Wednesday.

Ian Winter QC, acting for the jockey, said vital evidence had been destroyed, in line with normal procedure, due to a delay in a disciplinary inquiry being started against his client.

He told Mr Justice Stadlen that proceedings against McKeown had been "fundamentally unfair and wrong" and said there were such grave errors in the case that "your lordship should quash this matter and have an end of it".

McKeown took his case to the High Court after being warned off for four years for his part in a conspiracy to lay 11 horses trained by Paul Blockley between March 2004 and December 2005.

Mr Winter said it was Blockley who was the constant in the conspiracy, not McKeown, and that the BHA had acted with great bias against the jockey, not least in one of the four cases of the jockey's alleged breaches of the non-trier'srule on Blockley-trained runners.

Winter said it was only when the disciplinary panel inquiry, looking into the larger conspiracy case, resurrected the inquiry into the running and riding of Only If I Laugh at Southwell on June 16, 2004, that McKeown was found in breach of Rule 157.

He said that this decision had been taken on much more limited evidence than that available to the stewards on the day, as films and notes had been destroyed in line with a two-year retention policy.

Winter said: "Four years after the race, they found there was a riding breach to rule 157 despite four-fifths of the video anglesand contemporaneous conversations at the inquiry not being available. The transcript of what was said at the time had been destroyed along with the other camera angles, including the all-important scout camera from behind the runners.

"The committee still decided he had ridden out of the stalls with restraint more vigorous than required and he had administered an air shot, which I defy anyone to identify from the one piece of film available - your lordship will not see an air shot and nor did the five stewards watching the race at the time or in the inquiry."

Winter said the same whip action had been used by Franny Norton on the eight-length winner of the race. The case continues.
 
Yesterday;s events as reported on the RP site:


THERE was far less evidence against warned-off jockey Dean McKeown than in the collapsed Old Bailey trial of former champion Kieren Fallon, it was claimed on the second day of the McKeown's high court appeal against his four-year ban from racing.

The Crown Prosecution's case against Fallon and others spectacularly failed when Mr Justice Forbes found there was no case to answer after the prosecution case.
Ian Winter QC, for McKeown, was seeking to discredit all the BHA case against the jockey, again pointing the finger firmly at trainer Paul Blockley as the catalyst of the conspiracy said to have involved 11 horses trained by him in the period from March 2004 to December 2005.

He again claimed that all the laying of the horses was the result of information passed by Blockley to McKeown's friend Clive Whiting about the horses, not based on what McKeown was going to do in the races, and that was the only reason for the lay bets from associates of Whiting.

Winter went further, claiming Blockley was "in a financially dependent relationship with Mr Whiting", as the owner had guaranteed Blockley's overdraft and paid for £150,000 worth of horses the trainer had been left with when "another owner welshed on the deal".

The court was also told Whiting bought three horses sourced by the trainer after they had run first in Blockley's partner's name, "giving rise to the inference he provided Mr Whiting with information about the horses so Mr Whiting could win his purchase money back".

Blockley was warned off for two and a half years but is able to live on his licensed training premises, while McKeown waswarned off for four years. Winter said that also meant McKeown lost "all his livelihood as a successful bloodstock agent as well".

Winter added: "Trial judge Mr Justice Forbes identified from a similar evidential position on December 7, 2007 in finding no case to answer, the evidence was too tenuous to support any adverse inference."
 
Ha Ha Ha....

BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY WELCOMES MR JUSTICE STADLEN’S JUDGEMENT


· Dean McKeown remains a disqualified person for four breaches of Rule 157 (non-trier rule) and 201(v) (corrupt and fraudulent act)
· Dean McKeown ordered to pay 85% of the Authority’s costs
· Allegations of bias dismissed and, according to the judge, “should not have been made”


The British Horseracing Authority welcomes the judgement of Mr Justice Stadlen in relation to the claim lodged in the High Court by Dean McKeown, a former licensed jockey who was banned for four years for corruption offences. Speaking after the judgement, in which Mr Justice Stadlen overwhelmingly ruled in favour of the Authority, Paul Struthers, Head of Communications, said:
“We are pleased that Mr Justice Stadlen’s detailed judgement dismissed virtually every single claim advanced by Dean McKeown’s legal team. Most importantly, Dean McKeown remains disqualified from racing for participating in a corrupt and fraudulent act, a decision Mr Justice Stadlen ruled was entirely fair and reasonable. Additionally, the award against McKeown to pay 85% of our costs – with an £80,000 interim payment to be made within 90 days - is a clear sign that our processes and Rules, and the decision making and approach of both the independent Disciplinary Panel and independent Appeal Board, are fundamentally correct in law, as well as being fair and reasonable.
“Examining his judgement in more detail, Mr Justice Stadlen has concluded that the Panel and the Appeal Board are experts in dealing with matters in relation to the Rules of Racing, and therefore came to reasonable conclusions regarding the four non-trier races under Rule 157. He found the Panel’s decision to find that McKeown had not ridden four horses on their merits, contrary to Rule 157, was fair and open for a reasonable Panel to make. Importantly, he also concluded that Rule 201(v) was applied correctly and the Panel and the Appeal Board acted reasonably in finding that McKeown was party to a conspiracy to conduct a corrupt and fraudulent practice and therefore in breach of Rule 201(v) and were correct in their approach to the evidence.
“Moreover, we were pleased that the Judge found there to be no evidence whatsoever to support the damaging and baseless allegation made by McKeown’s defence, under the protection of court privilege, that the Authority, the Panel or Appeal Board were biased. Indeed he went as far as to say that the allegations “should not have been made”.
“With regards to the sole point that the Judge has ordered to be referred back to the Disciplinary Panel, we will schedule a directions hearing to take place within 28 days. Whether the Panel feel this small detail affects the four year disqualification penalty is entirely a matter for them.”
 
Good news indeed.

My main regret in relation to McKeown is that I wasn't at Doncaster the day he rode a winner just after he'd been given the ban. At that stage he was actually being allowed to ride pending the hearing of his appeal. Unbelievably, some punters cheered him into the winners' enclosure with McKeown punching the air, for all the world as if he was the little man on the wrong end of an Establishment vendetta.

I would certainly have done my best to redress the balance and make my feelings known.
 
gus said:
My main regret in relation to McKeown is that I wasn't at Doncaster the day he rode a winner just after he'd been given the ban. At that stage he was actually being allowed to ride pending the hearing of his appeal. Unbelievably, some punters cheered him into the winners' enclosure with McKeown punching the air, for all the world as if he was the little man on the wrong end of an Establishment vendetta.
Click to expand...

'An emotional winner for Deano' that, according to Mapletoft.
 
gus said:
Good news indeed.

My main regret in relation to McKeown is that I wasn't at Doncaster the day he rode a winner just after he'd been given the ban. At that stage he was actually being allowed to ride pending the hearing of his appeal. Unbelievably, some punters cheered him into the winners' enclosure with McKeown punching the air, for all the world as if he was the little man on the wrong end of an Establishment vendetta.

I would certainly have done my best to redress the balance and make my feelings known.
Click to expand...

Likewise, it was sickening.

He got caught because he was a serial offender who got greedy, there are plenty out there at the same things yet the BHA turns a blind eye.
 
Back
Top