The Appeals Body (Division 1), Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly, (in the chair), Ms. Justice Leonie Reynolds and Mr. John Murphy convened in the Offices at the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on Saturday, 31^st July 2021 to consider the appeal of Mr. S.J. Mahon (Trainer) against the decision of the Referrals Committee issued on 3^rd June 2021.

In the decision issued, the Referrals Committee found that Mr. Mahon was in breach of Rule 148(i), Rule 148(iv), Rule 149 and Rule 272(i) and they ordered the withdrawal of Mr. Mahon’s training licence and suspended him from holding such a licence for a period of four years until 14^th April 2025 and ordered Mr. Mahon contribute €5,000 in costs.

The grounds of appeal lodged by Mr. Mahon challenged the Referrals Committee’s decision on numerous grounds.

At the Appeal, submissions were made by Mr. Seamus Clarke, SC, instructed by Mr. Patrick Ward of Patrick Ward and Company Solicitors, on behalf of Mr. Mahon and by Mr. Frank Crean, BL, instructed by Ms. Cliodhna Guy, on behalf of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.

The Appeals Body reserved their judgement on 31^st July 2021 and their written judgement is attached to this press release.

Having considered the evidence, the Appeals Body have deemed Mr. Mahon ineligible to hold a Trainer’s licence for a period of three years and six months (until 14^th October 2024). They have also noted that if Mr. Mahon wished to apply for a licence after that period has elapsed, it will be a matter for the Licensing Committee to consider.

The case was presented by Mr. Seamus Clarke, SC, instructed by Mr. Patrick Ward of Patrick Ward and Company Solicitors, on behalf of Mr. Mahon and by Mr. Frank Crean, BL, instructed by Ms. Cliodhna Guy, IHRB Head of Licensing, Legal & Compliance on behalf of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

IRISH HORSERACING REGULATORY BOARD

APPEALS BODY

 

BETWEEN

THE IRISH HORSERACING REGULATORY BOARD

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

 

AND

 

STEPHEN MAHON

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Referrals Committee delivered on the 3^rd June, 2021. The Referrals Committee convened on the 29^th April, 2021 and the 3^rd May, 2021 to consider whether or not Mr. Stephen Mahon (trainer) was in breach of the Rules of Racing following two inspections of his licensed premises at Kilcolgan, Co. Galway, on the 13^th and 15^th of April 2021.
2. The Referrals Committee dealt with the matter on an expedited basis as Mr. Mahon’s licence was suspended with immediate effect following the second inspection on the 15^th April 2021. Evidence was heard from 13 witnesses over two days.
3. A comprehensive written decision was subsequently delivered by the Referrals Committee on the 3^rd June, 2021.
4. In its decision, the Referrals Committee held there were breaches of rule 148(i), rule 148(iv), rule 149(i), rule 149(ii) and rule 272(i).They ordered the withdrawal of Mr. Mahon’s training licence for a period of four years (until 14^th April, 2025).  Further, Mr. Mahon was ordered to pay a contribution of €5,000 towards the costs of the hearing.
5. Thereafter, a Notice of Appeal pursuant to rule 256 was lodged on Mr. Mahon’s behalf on the 10^th June, 2021.
6. Submissions were subsequently filed on behalf of Mr. Mahon on the 21^st July, 2021. Replying submissions were delivered on behalf of the IHRB on the 28^th July, 2021. 
7. The Appeals Committee, Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly (in the chair), Ms. Justice Leonie Reynolds and Mr. John Murphy convened on the 31^st July, 2021 at the offices of the IHRB to consider the Appeal.
8. The Appeal was presented by Mr. Seamus Clarke SC instructed by Mr. Patrick Ward of Patrick Ward and Company, Solicitors on behalf of Mr. Mahon.The IHRB was represented by Mr. Frank Crean BL instructed by Ms. Cliodhna Guy, IHRB Head of Legal Licensing and Compliance. 

 

Background

9. On the 13^th April, 2021, IHRB veterinary staff (Nicola O’Connor MRCVS and Sarah Ross MRCVS) conducted an unannounced inspection of Mr. Mahon’s licensed premises at Kilcolgan, Co. Galway. The facilities are rented by Mr. Mahon from Mr. Tom Quinn, who also owns farmlands surrounding the training establishment. Concerns arising from this inspection led to a further inspection on the 15^th April by four authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture, led by Arthur O’Connor MRCVS. IHRB veterinary staff were also present at this inspection.
10. Thereafter, the IHRB referred charges to the Referrals Committee in respect of alleged breaches of rules 88(iii), 148(i), 148(ii), 148(iv), 149(i), 149(ii), 272(ii) and 273(xiii) of the Rules of Racing.
11. The Referrals Committee convened to consider these matters on the 29^th April and the 3^rd May, 2021.  Subsequently, the parties submitted written submissions to assist the Referral’s Committee with its determination.
12. The written decision was delivered on the 3^rd June, 2021.

 

Grounds of appeal

13. Mahon’s Notice of Appeal seeks to impugn the Referrals Committee’s decision on numerous grounds. Not all were pursued in the written submissions nor at the hearing.
14. In view of the more focused approach taken, the substantial grounds of appeal pursued can now be encapsulated as follows:

(a) the Referrals Committee erred in finding a breach of rule 148(iv) in respect of Geoffrey’s Girl;

(b) the sanction that flowed from such breach was unfounded;

(c)  the Referrals Committee erred in the overall sanction imposed on Mr. Mahon having attached undue weight to the IHRB veterinary evidence and/or by failing to adequately or properly evaluate the evidence offered by Mr. Mahon in relation to the other animals.

15. Whilst the Referrals Committee further held Mr. Mahon in breach of rule 149 of the Rules (failure to register two stable staff members) and this issue formed part of the grounds of appeal, it was not pursued thereafter at the hearing of the appeal.

 

The relevant Rules of Racing

16. Rule 148 (i) of the Rules provides as follows: -

“A Trainer shall be responsible (except where otherwise provided in these Rules) for everything connected with the welfare, training and running of all Horses under the care of that Trainer and shall be liable to any sanction available to the Stewards, the Referrals Committee…or the Appeals Body, as the case may be, unless the Trainer provides a satisfactory explanation”.

17. Rule 148 (iv) of the Rules provides: -

“When the Referrals Committee or the Appeals Body are of the opinion that a Trainer has failed to exercise adequate supervision (not amounting to misconduct) over the Horses or employees under his charge they may withdraw or refuse his licence to train Horses.”

18. Rule 272of the Rules provides: -

“Any person involved in horseracing who, within the jurisdiction of the IHRB:

(i)         Whether verbally or by conduct or behaviour acts in a manner which is prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing (whether or not such behaviour or conduct, verbal or otherwise, is associated directly with horseracing);

….shall be in breach of these Rules and liable to sanction.”

 

Geoffrey’s Girl

19. The main crux of the appeal centred on the Referrals Committee’s adversefinding of a breach of  rule 148(iv) in respect of Geoffrey’s Girl. This animal suffered a catastrophic fetlock injury which Mr. Mahon maintained occurred during schooling on the morning of the 13^th April 2021, approximately one hour before the initial inspection. This version of events was supported by Mr. Conor Heeney, who was schooling horses with Mr. Mahon that morning.
20. The IHRB asserted that the injury was more longstanding in nature and was most likely to have occurred on the 5^th April, 2021.
21. In essence, the IHRB relied on veterinary evidence which suggested that the injury was of greater longevity than that reported by Mr. Mahon and relied on the presence of a capped hock (a swelling over the horse’s hock) reputedly consistent with the onset of a forelimb injury some days previously. Ultrasound imaging of the left forelimb disclosed evidence of excessive deposition of fibrous tissue, again suggestive that the injury was more than one day old.
22. By way of explanation, Mr. Mahon stated that the capped hock arose from an incident when the horse was swimming the previous week.
23. In its closing submissions to the Referrals Committee, the IHRB conceded that if the Referrals Committee “accepts Mr. Mahon’s account, it cannot find him in breach of the Rules of Racing on this basis”. On balance, we are satisfied that such concession was reasonable in light of the evidence.
24. In its determination, the Referrals Committee proceeded to set out why, on the balance of probabilities, it was satisfied from the evidence that the injury was more likely to have occurred on the morning of the 13^th April as stated by Mr. Mahon. Nonetheless, it then went on to find Mr. Mahon in breach of rule 148(iv) in respect of the level of supervision exercised over the animal post injury on the basis that more timely efforts ought to have been made to secure immediate veterinary attention and held:

“We are satisfied that there were other competent veterinary practitioners in that general area of County Galway. There was no evidence of urgent efforts to secure assistance given the gravity of the injury”.

25. We would respectfully disagree with this finding for the following reasons.
26. Firstly, there was uncontroverted evidence before the Committee from Mr. Mahon that he had attempted to contact his veterinary surgeon, Mr. Paul Houlihan, at 10.56 a.m. by mobile phone before the inspection commenced.
27. Secondly, neither of the veterinary surgeons in attendance at the inspection had directed that immediate veterinary attention was required but suggested that the animal be treated by the veterinary surgeon who was attending that afternoon to treat other animals. Mahon was subsequently advised over the phone after the inspection that Geoffrey’s Girl was to be produced that afternoon for veterinary inspection by Mr. Houlihan.
28. Thirdly, the factual matrix as found by the Committee was not put to Mr. Mahon i.e. that he ought to have made more timely efforts to secure veterinary assistance for the animal, and he wasn’t afforded an opportunity to meet that case.
29. In all the circumstances, it would be unfair and unjust to uphold the adverse finding in respect of Geoffrey’s Girl when there was insufficient evidence to support it.
30. However, whilst the Referrals Committee determined that there was a breach of rule 148(iv)it did so on the basis of a more benign version of events than that contended for by the IHRB. This is of considerable significance when it comes to reviewing the issue of the overall sanction imposed.

 

The other animals

31. Mahon conceded both in his evidence before the Referrals Committee and at the Appeal hearing that the remaining horses at issue were not being sufficiently monitored/supervised and ought to have been “better looked after”.
32. His appeal, therefore, in respect of these animals is limited to the severity of the overall sanction imposed. In that regard, issue is taken with the manner in which the Referrals Committee weighed up the totality of the evidence and how it resolved discrepancies and/or conflicts in the evidence.
33. In effect, Mr. Mahon accepts that, consequent upon the lack of supervision exercised over these animals, welfare issues arose resulting in injuries of varying degrees to them. However, he maintains that, had the veterinary evidence offered on his behalf been brought into the balance and sufficient weight attached to it, the injuries might have been found to be less serious and consequently, the sanction less severe.
34. As a starting point, it is readily apparent that the Referrals Committee was best placed to evaluate the evidence given by the witnesses at the hearing and to determine which evidence it found most convincing and make findings accordingly.
35. Further, having considered the transcript of the evidence and the video footage made available at the hearing, we are of the view that such findings were not only justified but were in fact wholly inevitable.
36. Undoubtably, there was some dispute in the evidence as to the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the animals and the Referrals Committee was required to resolve inconsistencies in that regard.
37. However, there was no dispute in relation to certain aspects of the evidence and notably some concessions were made by Mr. Mahon and his witnesses.
38. In respect of the Highway Royal and Beer With The Boys, Mr. Mahon stated that while these animals were not purposely neglected, he accepted that they should have been more closely monitored and “looked after better”.
39. Highway Royal had a chronic injury which was a least one week old and had not received any veterinary treatment. The horse was trotted by Mr. Mahon during the inspection and was found to be lame at trot but sound at walk.The injury consisted of an open and septic wound to its right fore. It was a large wound with copious discharge and the leg was also enlarged. Upon examination, the horse resented palpation of the injured leg, indicative of pain. Treatment involved the administration of intravenous antibiotics followed by a course of oral antibiotics.
40. Whilst the veterinary surgeons who examined Highway Royal at different stages may have used different terminology to describe his condition, there was little difference of substance between them. All agreed that the horse had not been adequately supervised, consequently his injury had not been identified nor the necessity for veterinary intervention to treat same.
41. In the circumstances, the findings of breaches of rule 148(i) and 148(iv) were inescapable.
42. In relation to Beer With The Boys, fortunately the absence of supervision did not result in similar adverse findings and this was accepted by the Referrals Committee. However, this of itself cannot and does not absolve Mr. Mahon of any culpability in circumstances where he made admissions that there was no system of supervision in place. Consequentially, there was no system in place to identify the horse’s welfare needs.
43. The Referrals Committee correctly identified breaches of rule 148 in the circumstances and noted that “these breaches are not aggravated by injury and pain…”. It was evident, that in approaching the issue of sanction for such breaches, this would be taken into account in mitigation.
44. However, we are satisfied that the Referrals Committee fell into error in mistakenly referring to this animal as “Animal G” at one stage in its decision when in fact it is Animal C as referred to earlier in the decision. In the circumstances, this is a matter which will be required to be taken into account in addressing the overall sanction where it appears Mr. Mahon has been found guilty of breaches under rule 148(i) and (iv) twice in respect of the same animal.
45. Further admissions were made in respect of the horses that had been turned out into a field some weeks prior to the inspection on the 13^th April, 2021. Mr. Mahon accepted that he had “turned [his] back a little on the horses that were on the outside”. Ms. Colgan, his partner, conceeded that they “didn’t pay attention to what was going on outside of the stables”.
46. Consequently, the welfare of those animals was compromised as follows:

• Whitequarryroad required in patient veterinary treatment in circumstances where he was found to be lame on both legs and his body condition was very poor.
• Raz de Maree was found to be thin and in poor condition. He was in need of veterinary treatment which was subsequently attended to.
• The remaining animals had not received any veterinary attention in the previous weeks nor had they been attended to by a farrier for a significant period of time. The hooves of all seven horses in the field were overgrown and required immediate attention.
• Whilst the veterinary surgeons who inspected these animals may have differed in some respects in their assessment of the animals, they all agreed that the horses required but had not received veterinary attention for some considerable time.

47. Mahon’s dereliction of duty in failing to attend to and supervise these horses and to identify their welfare needs was further compounded by the fact that the field where the horses had been turned out was entirely unsuitable. There was no grass cover; the ground was hard and dry with pockets of weeds throughout.
48. Gill who gave evidence on his behalf accepted that the practice of turning horses out into a field and not checking them was “not good practice”.
49. In finding Mr. Mahon in breach of Rule 148(i) and (iv) in respect of these animals, the Referrals Committee determined that it was not necessary to resolve all issues in dispute between Mr. Mahon and IHRB in circumstances where the undisputed evidence was reflective of and sufficient to establish a lack of supervision and a failure to identify the welfare needs of the animals in Mr. Mahon’s care.
50. We are satisfied that the correct approach was adopted by the Referrals Committee in this regard and that its findings were manifestly justified and supported by the evidence.

 

Rule 149

51. As stated above, whilst the breach of rule 149 formed part of the grounds of appeal it was not pursued on Mr. Mahon’s behalf at the hearing.
52. This arose in circumstances where there were two staff members present at the inspection on the 13^th April (Conor Heeney and Alice Tilbury) who had not been registered as stable employees by Mr. Mahon as required by rule 149.
53. In circumstances where such breaches fall at the lower end of the spectrum and normally attract modest fines, we propose to take these matters into consideration in the overall sanction.

 

 

 

Rule 272(i)

54. The Referrals Committee determined that having regard to the totality of the evidence and the culmination of the individual breaches of the rules that Mr. Mahon’s conduct as a licenced trainer fell well below the standard reasonably expected oflicence holders and was “prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing…”.
55. On any assessment of the evidence, it is manifestly clear that Mr. Mahon’s conduct is injurious to the good reputation of horse racing. As a licence holder, he failed in his duties towards the horses in his care by failing to adequately supervise them and to identify even their most basic welfare needs. The outcome of the inspections identified very serious shortcomings in the manner in which he operated his training establishment. Further, considerable welfare concerns were raised in respect of some of the animals, consequentially calling into question Mr. Mahon’s fitness to hold a training licence.
56. Such conduct by a licence holder is inevitably detrimental to the good reputation of horseracing, and amounted to a breach of public trust and confidence in licenced trainers that animals in their charge will receive thebest of care.

 

Sanction

57. Having found Mr. Mahon in breach of the rules as outlined above, the Referrals Committee sought to impose a fair and proportionate sanction, having due regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors as outlined in its decision.
58. In so doing, it took into account a breach of rule 148(iv) in respect of Geoffrey’s Girl which no longer applies having regard to our findings above. Further, it took account of breaches of rule 148(i) and (iv) on a double count in respect of Beer With The Boys as previously outlined.
59. The sanction requires to be adjusted accordingly.
60. In considering the appropriate level of adjustment, we are mindful that the adverse finding of a breach of rule 148(iv) in relation to Geoffrey’s Girl by the Referrals Committee was on a less serious basis than that contended for by the IHRB and emanated from a purported lack of supervision over a period of hours post injury. The Referrals Committee found a more minor transgression in relation to rule 148 than what was being advanced by the IHRB. The practical effect of this is that it had a less significant impact on the penalty imposed by them.
61. Further, it is evident that in determining the issue of sanction, the Referrals Committee’s finding of a breach of rule 148(iv) in relation to Geoffrey’s girl was only one of numerous breaches taken into account by the Committee, having regard to breaches under rule 148(i) and (iv) in respect of the other animals and the consequential breach of rule 272(i) as outlined above.
62. Taking all of these matters into account and in seeking to impose a fair, proportionate and reasonable penalty, we propose to disqualify Mr. Mahon from holding a training licence for a period of three years and six months (until 14^th October, 2024) in circumstances where Mr. Mahon’s licence has already been withdrawn. Should Mr. Mahon wish to apply for a licence after that period has elapsed, it will be a matter for the Licensing Committee thereafter.
63. In relation to the issue of costs, we will affirm the decision of the Referrals Committee in respect of the costs of its hearing but will make no further order for costs on the appeal in circumstances where Mr. Mahon succeeded on a limited basis.