The High Court has ruled that people facing an Irish Coursing Club disciplinary inquiry over a positive drug test from Irish Cup winner Boavista must receive specific information needed to challenge the evidence against them.
Boavista won the J.P. McManus Irish Cup at Limerick Greyhound Race Track on February 26th, 2006. A urine sample taken afterwards was subsequently reported by the National Greyhound Laboratory in Limerick as containing amphetamine, a prohibited substance.
The club proposed an inquiry into whether Patrick Curtin, Denis Gould, Vincent Jones, known collectively as the Curtin Gould Jones Syndicate, and Bridget Curtin were in breach of Rule 88. That rule allowed penalties including forfeiture of prize money and trophies, fines, exclusion from greyhound activities and other sanctions.
Before the inquiry, the applicants sought documents and information concerning the testing process. The club supplied the certificate of analysis, drug-testing details and two handling certificates. It said it had no witness statements or video evidence and resisted a broader demand for disclosure.
Mr Justice Herbert held that the seriousness of the allegations meant fair procedures applied before as well as during the disciplinary hearing. The applicants had already been adequately informed of the accusation and had received the documents in the club's possession on which it intended to rely.
However, the court found they were entitled to details of how and for how long the urine sample was stored at the National Greyhound Laboratory. Without that information, their lawyers could not properly assess whether sample storage provided a genuine defence or effectively cross-examine laboratory personnel.
The court also held that, before the hearing, the club should identify the names, qualifications and functions of witnesses it might call, although their addresses did not have to be disclosed.
The wider request for every document held by the club concerning the incident was rejected as going beyond what fair procedures required.
The ruling did not determine whether amphetamine was present in Boavista or whether any applicant breached Rule 88. Those questions remained for the coursing club inquiry.