This is not satisfactory Carly

An Exemptions policy should be documented and transparent to all participants

Wouldn't you think though they would say this? Shows they are just incompetent. To have guidelines but keep them secret suggests possible favouritism.

Surely they would pick incompetent over discrimination?

It then took weeks of emails to be approved to place padding around the bowl. As she had her feet in the bowl the padding had provided little protection.

On the issue of exemptions at first they refused all on the grounds there were no exemptions. At my inquiry they said a level-playing field was necessary (so no exemptions).

At my appeal to the Tribunal one of my legal arguments was that policies must have discretion. GRNSW to counter this argued that there were discretions given by the race day steward. (At the time none existed but they still argued that.)

For a long time after they still refused to give any exemptions. At the Supreme Court they had again changed arguments and said that if your dog was hurt by the bowl then it was your obligation to not enter your greyhound to race. (Yes completely absurd but that is what they argued).

Since the Supreme Court it seems that though they argued if you were hurt by the bowl you shouldn't race, they are giving exemptions to the policy.

My problem is there are no public procedures or guidelines for exemptions. I do not know if this is because they are playing favourites, because they have no procedures or guidelines, or because it would be an admission that what they argued at court was in direct contradiction to what they are doing in practice.

I do not want to see exemptions be taken away as I do not want to see greyhounds hurt. I just want the procedures and guidelines made public so everyone is treated the same. I also want them to stop making greyhounds have to hurt themselves a few times before they will be granted exemptions. (I do wonder whether the reason they won't publish procedures is that it would be an admission that they want the greyhound hurt more than once before they will consider an application.)

subject to any direction from an authorised person.... water bowl must ....

thats where the exemption might come from, but its on the day/night. However, it could be continuous and yes, a precedent is set for that particular dog, not all dogs. The same with strapping. After a few runs a dog has to wear the strapping, but not all dogs.

In the Tribunal appeal GRNSW used that part of the policy to say that the administrator and the General Manager Integrity (Stephen Dodd) did not have to consider my exemption because they were the wrong people to ask. It was only the race day steward who could be asked and would decide on the exemption. The Tribunal agreed and found my greyhound's injury did not have to be considered because I hadn't asked the right person.

After this I know a few people who then asked the race day stewards for exemptions and they were told the race day steward can't decide, it had to go to Stephen Dodd for a decision.

As to precedent, I agree with you John that it should be the case but with GRNSW who is going to enforce that? GRNSW gets to make up the rules, enforce the rules and then charge for breaches. When reading through Tribunal decisions over the years it is hard to say they don't also have a heavy influence in the Tribunal. The cost of going beyond this is exorbitant. The only way that to have some assurance that people are treated the same is to have an open and transparent process but that is precisely what GRNSW are refusing to do.

The precise wording of the policy hardly seems to matter to GRNSW anyways. This is still in the policy

"In accordance with GAR38, all greyhounds are weighed at the entry into the kennels and the
weight recorded by the controlling body.
Each greyhound must also be weighed on retrieval from the kennel by the handler prior to its
race. A record of the weight is to be made by the controlling body.
The greyhound shall be weighed without its lead or collar but with its racing muzzle.
Any greyhound with a weight variation of greater than 1.5% (0.45kg in a 30kg greyhound) should
be directed to the on-course veterinarian to establish whether it is appropriate to race."

They have not been reweighing dogs almost from the start of the policy yet they have not been bothered to change it. Though at the Supreme Court GRNSW counsel mentioned that dogs are reweighed, seemed to suggest it showed how much the policy cared about welfare. I thought it showed that GRNSW do not even know what is happening at racetracks.

Judges dont always dish out justice, they just dish out an interpretation of the law.

I know as well that other participants have had issues with the controlling body where the same themes are evident.
1 - GRNSW do not care about the welfare of greyhounds.
2 - GRNSW lack integrity and refuse to be open and transparent.

I just keep mentioning the water bowl because it is what I experienced so I can give examples.

Last night a participant asked GWIC if they thought GRNSW cared about the welfare of greyhounds. They refused to answer but there is no way they could have left that meeting without an understanding that participants are of the belief that GRNSW has no concern for the welfare of greyhounds.

Now, its hunting season on the 99% of good people in the industry. People forget about participants welfare. I feel for the older participants.

Take a look at the McHugh report from both perspectives - that of the greyhound participant and that of the judicial fraternity.

To the greyhound participant the common threads which form the backbone of the current legislation are the areas that are most vigorously argued.
1.That a "social license" must be obtained and adhered to otherwise the industry had no place in modern society.Is there a "social license" applied to the tobacco industry?
2.That there was and will continue to be a regime of "systematic animal cruelty".This infers a system whereby the industry were a rule unto themselves, with everyone participating. I am still to see the vetinary fraternity report anything that would confirm this situation.
3.That the industry could not reform because its "value judgement" would be too hard to change.

To the credit of the Alliance, they had the former Commonwealth solicitor-general, David Bennett QC,ready to argue the case in the Supreme Court. The homework had been done,the prelims had been conducted, the case was ready to go.The McHugh report was a big chance of being declared invalid. Then it looks like a deal was done,the ban was reversed and the court action was dropped.

Now look from the perspective of the judicial fraternity.
1.A retired high court judge has basically taken a "political commission",he has associated himself with one political party. To the judicial fraternity, nothing is more important than impartiality, otherwise their credentials are forever tainted.
2.The government "borrowed" the reputation and integrity of McHugh to produce the desired result, thus bringing into question the integrity, independence and legitimacy of the judiciary.
3.The ethical risk of a former judge taking on such a politically charged commission would not have gone unnoticed.

For the industry to bring this whole saga back to somewhere near middle ground,the McHugh report must be declared invalid. This would not only subdue the activists and negative overtures,it would bring the government back to the table. But,as we have seen,there is now another player,the legal system, which will vehemently act to protect their credentials.

To fight Macquarrie Street, you have to live in Macquarrie Street.

Our only chance is to take up MLC Borsack and the SFF offer to represent us and snowball the effort to a point where it is bigger and more emotional than the opposition to the ban itself.
There is power in numbers,but there is still a lot of pain to come.

Never give up.

Trevor,

How did you go with your exemption?

I have heard that Grant Carroll is refusing to give exemptions now even with pictures and evidence of the damage caused on multiple occasions.

Not sure if he is refusing exemptions in general or whether they are just discriminating against some participants.

You can PM me if you want.

These are the forms we MUST fill in and give to GRNSW and then it appears they give them to her. They have been posted with the greyhounds name and earbrand.

There is much in what you say.

However, to get the report invalidated or even corrected would involve some pretty hefty legal and/or parliamentary processes. It has been done notably with the IAC recently (which also involved going to the High Court and back) but it would not be easy and it would take a long time.

Apart from some very big dollars, that would need someone or some organisation of substance to lead the charge. GBOTA is not competent to do that and GRNSW would dodge the responsibility.

I suggest a different way to skin the cat: build a document a kind of election manifesto that can be directed to all and sundry (with repeats) for as long as is necessary to sway public opinion. It would list the factual errors and procedural shortcomings in the operation of the Commission. It would also provide a road map for Borsak. It should be in a glossy colour brochure format (crowd-funded?, sponsors?).

For example, there was little or no cross-examination of assertions which were eventually used to back the end report. Dozens of arguments were never tested, as would be the case in a normal court. Views opposed to the McHugh conclusions were rarely mentioned and therefore (presumably) not given any weight.

The other side of the coin is that the government fall-back position is that abuses did occur cruelty, live baiting and high (and improper) euthanasia rates so therefore strong corrective action was justified. The questions that remain are the numbers involved and the industrys ability to reform.

Governments major weakness is that it could not justify shutting down an entire industry.

Essentially, I am saying that a legal challenge is not really practicable but a PR campaign is. Success in that way could then help achieve a more balanced approach to the codes administration. Importantly, it would offer a platform for MPs who have more kindly attitudes to greyhound racing.

Incidentally, while we all talk about the McHugh Commission, its as well to remember that all the big pushing came from Counsel Assisting (Rushton) who himself has a greenish background and was responsible for the initial shut it down call. The Commissioners role is to hear and sift the material put before him by Rushton and others.

PS: Trevor, much of your "legal system" is not always supportive of independent commissions - as illustrated when the High Court acted to stop IAC excesses. Additionally, the Bar Association has not been onside with Grant on a number of matters, including when he finessed the system to have the Attorney General report to him rather than the Premier. Grant has often been accused of being a bully and his body language is terrible. So much for ex-policemen (see also Qld and Vic administrations).