Graham Bradley v The Jockey Club
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Richards |
| Judgment Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ 03X01658 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2164 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Richards
Case No: HQ 03X01658
Mr Timothy Higginson (instructed by Mishcon De Reya) for the Claimant
Mr Mark Warby QC (instructed by Charles Russell) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 28–30 June 2004
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The claimant, Mr Graham Bradley, was a successful steeplechase jockey licensed by the defendant Jockey Club from January 1982 until December 1999, when he retired. He now carries on a successful business as a bloodstock agent. In June 2002 he was charged by the Jockey Club with a number of breaches of the Rules of Racing alleged to have been committed during his time as a licensed jockey. The Disciplinary Committee found certain of the charges proved and imposed penalties which included disqualification for a period of eight years. An Appeal Board dismissed an appeal on liability but, on an appeal against penalty, substituted a five year period of disqualification. That penalty of disqualification, which has been suspended pending the outcome of the present proceedings, will almost certainly bring the claimant's business to an end and will have an extremely serious effect on his livelihood and his family. By the present proceedings he challenges the imposition of the penalty, contending that it was disproportionate and unlawful. It is said on his behalf that a proportionate penalty would have been measured in weeks or months rather than years.
It is common ground that the court has jurisdiction to review the Appeal Board's decision. There is, however, a substantial dispute as to whether the basis of that jurisdiction in the present case is contractual or non-contractual and about the precise nature of the court's role. Beyond those arguments, however, there is a fundamental divide between the parties as to the appropriateness of the penalty imposed. In effect, the claimant submits that on any view the penalty was disproportionate and unlawful, whereas the Jockey Club submits that on any view it was proportionate and lawful. Acceptance of one or other of those extreme positions would provide a short-cut for my judgment. I think it right, however, to take the longer route.
Factual background
During the period when the claimant was a licensed jockey, he was friendly with a fellow jockey called Barrie Wright, who in fact lived for a number of years with the claimant and the claimant's then girlfriend (now his wife). Through Barrie Wright the claimant met a professional gambler called Brian Brendan Wright ("Mr Wright Snr", who was no relation of Barrie Wright) and various associates of Mr Wright Snr, including his son Brian Anthony Wright ("Mr Wright Jnr"), his son-in-law Paul Shannon and a man called Ian Kiernan.
On 21 June 1999, at a meeting with members of the Jockey Club's Licensing Committee, the question of the claimant's association with people including Mr Wright Snr was raised. The claimant told the members that he had done nothing wrong with any of those people.
In 2001 Mr Wright Jnr, Mr Shannon and Mr Kiernan were convicted of offences of importation or supply of cocaine. Barrie Wright was also charged with involvement in a conspiracy to import cocaine. Part of the prosecution case against him was that he had received cash payments from Mr Wright Snr (who did not stand trial) in connection with a drugs operation. Barrie Wright's defence was that his involvement with Mr Wright Snr and the others had related not to drugs but to the provision of information about racehorses for the purposes of a gambling organisation led by Mr Wright Snr. On 28 September 2001, at Barrie Wright's trial at Southampton Crown Court, the claimant was called to give evidence in support of the defence.
The evidence given by the claimant at Southampton is summarised as follows in a decision of the Appeal Board to which I refer below. It is a convenient summary, although one of the issues I will need to address later in relation to the question of penalty is whether the Appeal Board made unwarranted inferences going beyond the evidence given at the trial:
"5.16 Mr Bradley's Evidence given at Southampton …
(i) In his evidence to the Southampton Crown Court, Mr Bradley said that it was not just Mr Barrie Wright who was providing confidential information to Mr Wright Snr. and his team, but that he also was himself providing such information …. Mr Bradley went on to describe the sort of information which he himself was providing as 'very privileged' and as information for which punters would give their 'eye teeth' …. At an earlier stage in his evidence, Mr Bradley had given a detailed account of Mr Barrie Wright's regular practice of passing well researched information to assist Mr Wright Snr.'s team to bet profitably …. Mr Bradley described this information as 'privileged, sensitive information which the public generally can't get hold of' and 'sensitive, privileged information like the wellbeing of a racehorse, if it has been coughing, how fit it is …' ….
(ii) In his evidence at Southampton, Mr Bradley went on to confirm that members of Mr Wright Snr.'s betting organisation held his telephone and/or mobile numbers for the purpose of obtaining confidential information from him. The names of such members he identified as Mr Wright Snr., Mr Wright Jnr., Mr Kiernan and Mr Shannon. In reference to these contacts within the Racing Organisation, and in regard to related matters, Mr Bradley went on to say, in cross-examination …:
Q 'You would expect them to ring you or at one stage when you were riding, did they ring you regularly and you ring them regularly for this exchange of information?'
A 'Yes'
Q 'Let us be clear – it is not only Barrie John Wright who is providing information to Brian Brendan and his team, you were as well, were you not?'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'The sort of information which, let us all be quite clear, the average punter would probably give his eye teeth for?'
A 'Yes, very privileged information.'
Q 'Information which the yards and the owner you were riding for expect you to be giving to Brian Brendan Wright?'
A 'Not generally, no.'
Q 'What you are actually doing, Mr Bradley, is providing information which is, in essence, in confidence to you, you are giving it to other people for their financial advantage.'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'In the end, also for your own financial advantage.'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'Because when you give a good tip to someone like Brian Brendan Wright, you get 'a present' do you not?'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'Thousands of pounds sometimes?'
A 'Not that sort of money.'
Q 'What is the biggest amount he has paid?'
A 'Different nights out and hotels etc. etc. I can't recall the exact biggest present he has given me.'
Q 'Let us see how this system works. It is known that you and others like you have access to this privileged information which you should not be disclosing.'
A 'Every jockey in the country, numbering 300–400 has the same and probably does the same.'
Q 'Who they give it to of course depends, on who they know and how they are treated by the people they know.'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'Because it is quite simple – it is you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back situation, is it not?'
A 'You could say that.'
Q 'And how you got your back scratched, was, apparently, nights out at expensive night-clubs?'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'All the drinks paid for, all the meals paid for, all the rest of it paid for by Brian Brendan Wright?'
A 'Yes.'
Q 'Envelopes handed over with cash if you had given him a good tip?'
A 'Occasionally.'
Q 'Holidays paid for?'
A 'Flights occasionally, not generally holidays, no.'
Q 'Flights to Spain? Did you ever go out to his villa down there?'
A 'Yes, a few times.'
…
(iii) A little later in his evidence Mr Bradley went on to say that in the '1990s' he was providing Mr Wright Snr. with 'lots' of confidential information ….
…
(v) Mr Bradley received from Mr Wright Snr. by his own account in his evidence to the Southampton Court: -
(a) Nights out at expensive hotels and night clubs with all expenses met …. This was confirmed by the evidence of Mr Wright Jnr. in the transcript of his evidence before the Crown Court ….
(b) Envelopes handed over with cash to reward a good tip …. We infer that this involves at least sums in hundreds of pounds, see the various instances cited and Mr Bradley's account of what Mr Barrie Wright received ….
(c) Payment for occasional airline flights …."
By letter dated 18 June 2002 the claimant was given formal notification by the Jockey Club of an intended inquiry into a number of matters, the most serious of which arose out of the claimant's evidence to Southampton Crown Court. The letter stated that there were two options as to the form the inquiry would take:
"(A) An enquiry as to specific breaches of the Rules of Racing. You are invited to submit to the Rules of Racing for this purpose, and to consent to be treated as if at all material times you were bound by the Rules of Racing in force from time to time. If you do, then the Jockey Club's intention would be to conduct an enquiry into whether you acted in breach of the following particular Rules of Racing ….
(B) If you decline the above invitation to submit to the Rules of Racing then the Jockey Club will be unable to proceed with an enquiry of the kind mentioned at (A). It will however consider the same conduct in the context of an enquiry into whether, under Rule 2(v)(a) of the Rules of Racing, you should be excluded for an indefinite period from premises owned, controlled or licensed by the Jockey Club on the grounds that your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of London School of Science and Technology) v Secretary of State for The Home Department
...authorities indicate that the court's decision is confined to interfering if the decision maker has behaved in an unlawful way: i) Bradley v. The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) per Richards J (repeatedly cited with approval elsewhere): "The function of the court is not to take the primar......
-
Foden’s (Ivan) Application
...the court is not seeking to substitute its view for that of the Secretary of State. As Richards J said in Bradley v The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 QB at paragraph 37: “The function of the court is not to take the primary decision but to ensure that the primary decision-maker has operated ......
-
O'Connell v The Turf Club
...authority to follow the earlier case. The issue was finally resolved, in the neighbouring jurisdiction in Bradley v. The Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB). There, the circle of conflicting decisions was squared by holding that the contractual relationship between the jockey and the Jockey C......
-
R (Jorgenson) v Secretary of State for Justice
...a decision on a judicial review application. Indeed as was pointed out by Richards J (as he then was) in Bradley v The Jockey ClubUNK[2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) in passages which were expressly approved on appeal in that case by Lord Phillips MR [2005] EWCA Civ 1056, at para 17, when giving the j......