The High Court found that Graham Holland’s judicial review challenge to a proposed Control Committee investigation was brought prematurely. The court held that, when proceedings began, his rights to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice had not been breached or put in imminent danger.
The case arose after three urine samples taken from a greyhound trained by Holland on 24 June, 1 July and 22 July 2017 tested positive for a prohibited substance. The Control Committee of Bord na gCon was asked to investigate. The Board published the adverse analytical findings on its website, as required by the racing regulations.
Holland sought documents and access to the samples so an independent expert could analyse them. The Board agreed to allow independent analysis once he identified an accredited laboratory. The correspondence about disclosure, the investigation and whether Holland had to complete an investigation report form was, the judge said, loose and unclear.
Holland sought judicial review in November 2017, challenging the Committee’s plan to meet on 1 December and asking the court to prevent the meeting. After leave was granted, the meeting was injuncted and the Committee agreed not to proceed until the judicial review was determined. By the time of the judgment, the scheduled date had passed. The judge said the live issue was whether Holland had been right to bring proceedings at all.
The Committee’s final pre-meeting letter had clarified that 1 December would be a preliminary meeting, with no witnesses required, where outstanding issues could be raised and ruled on. The judge found that Holland would not have been required to answer the adverse findings without an opportunity to obtain his own expert report. Had the Committee refused an adjournment to allow testing, a legal issue might have arisen, but that situation never occurred.
The court also rejected Holland’s complaints that he had not received adequate notice of the allegations or possible sanctions. The investigation had not yet begun, and the precise allegations, if any, were still to be determined. The applicable sanctions were set out in the regulations. Although information about substance concentrations was disclosed late, the judge found no prejudice. The court also found he was not required to complete the report form and that no adverse consequence had yet followed from not completing it.
The judge found against Holland and held that the judicial review had been premature. The judgment did not determine the underlying adverse analytical findings or the outcome of the Committee’s proposed investigation.