The High Court has refused Anthony Martin leave to seek judicial review of a decision by the Irish Horse Racing Board’s Appeals Body, rejecting his argument that the Board’s barrister was not permitted to represent it under Irish law.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 16 May 2024, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said there was no arguable basis for challenging Rule 259 of the Rules of Racing. That rule allows a person appearing before the Appeals Body to be represented by a solicitor or barrister qualified and registered in Ireland or another jurisdiction. The judge said the rule concerned rights of audience before that body, while the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 regulated the legal profession.
The case arose after Firstman, a horse trained by Martin, won a handicap race at Dundalk Racecourse on 18 January 2023 and later tested positive for lidocaine, a prohibited race-day substance. The Referrals Committee imposed a €10,000 fine and withdrew Martin’s licence for six months, with the withdrawal suspended for two years.
The Board appealed, arguing the penalty was too lenient. Martin cross-appealed against the fine, conditional on the Board’s appeal succeeding. The Appeals Body found the penalty unduly lenient: it kept the six-month licence withdrawal but suspended only its final three months. It upheld the €10,000 fine and stayed its collection until 1 January 2025. The licence withdrawal was due to take effect on 15 May 2024.
At the Appeals Body hearing, Martin objected that the Board’s barrister, though in good standing in the UK, was not a qualified barrister under the Irish Act because he had not been called to the Irish Bar, admitted to King’s Inns or registered under the relevant European Communities regulations. The Appeals Body rejected the objection under Rule 259 and heard the appeals. Martin participated fully and did not complain about how the barrister conducted the case.
Martin began judicial review proceedings on 13 May 2024, seeking to quash the Appeals Body decision and Rule 259, and to stay the licence withdrawal. The High Court heard his applications for leave and a stay on notice on 14 May. It concluded that the barrister had not provided legal services as, or as if he were, a practising barrister, and that there was no breach of section 136 of the Act or conflict between the Act and Rule 259.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. As a result, it did not consider whether an arguable challenge to Rule 259 could also support a challenge to the Appeals Body’s decision. The question of a stay did not arise.