Indefinite Suspension Over Smartphone
A Down Under Standardbred horseman has been handed an indefinite suspension after he refused to give his smartphone to a racing investigator when asked.
Clinton Hall
An article by racenet.com.au explains that trainer/driver Clinton Hall has been suspended indefinitely after having refused to give his smartphone to an investigator that was looking into a January 24 race that took place at Gloucester Park.
An additional article by The West Australian states that Hall had previously given his device to stewards and it was returned afterward. Then later, according to Hall, an investigator with Racing and Wagering Western Australia showed up at Hall’s home and wanted to take his smartphone away.
The West Australian piece goes on quote Hall as saying that he refused to hand over his device to the investigator because the smartphone is the only point of contact he has between himself and his young children, whom he does not currently live with. According to Hall, the investigator wouldn’t tell him when the smartphone would be returned to him, thus he refused to give it up.
(With files from The West Australian and racenet.com.au)
This action requires
This action requires intervention by the Head of racing, if true. Obviously, the burden of proof is not the onus for the accused to facilitate. The status of how evidence is obtained is no different then due process civilly or any other action of law. Depending on the law of the jurisdiction, most jurisprudence requires a writ of order to just request your phone. The MATTER is now a case in which he can challenge all of their actions. The accused has this right. All people have a the right of a "evidence seizure form" If enforcement wants to take something from you, then they have a form they must fill. The intent to collect this evidence must have met a sniff test, that the evidence is or was used in a matter in which it may create a case for the crown or racing commission. Meaning, it must be acted in a matter in which it meets a SOP procedure set forth by the justice department. It correlates to all other divisions of government. It doesn't matter as each ties into each other. This is now circumstantial evidence that has a process and to "not taint" the evidence. The accused has a right to challenge the 'gathering of evidence process" and to, also the right to hold the government accountable financially from loses. The government would not counsel an employee to just take someones phone without a "evidence sheet". It's too bad the whole story isn't explained and rather taint the government. I am on the trainers said, but something in this story doesn't make sense. The governing body would normally have a person who knows "the collecting evidence SOP'S", therto, the evidence gatherer and indicates" he must follow a rule of collecting evidence". The point I am trying to make is- this story seems convoluted and requires a better detail of the movement. Whats the punch line here? The Australian racing authority is not acting in good faith or making their own laws. If this is the case and we have zero rights, zero rights to the point that we diminish our integrity to the mood of a man who is commissioned to make his own desire of appeasement, based on his interpretation of the law. Get the clown out of there and find a new driver for the boat.