bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Robin Parke

The Jockey Club stresses repeatedly its determination to maintain the integrity of Hong Kong racing.

 In the light of deeply disturbing events in a Hong Kong court last week, it would be welcome to know officially that this 'determination' does not countenance the abandonment of ethics and a disregard for the basic tenets of natural justice.

 And that the Jockey Club does not subscribe to the catchphrase of dubious enterprises that 'the end justifies the means'.

 District Court Judge Maggie Poon Man-kay freed apprentice jockey James Chan Ka-chun because confessions the 22-year-old had made to Jockey Club Security Department personnel had been induced.

 The case against Chan collapsed and months of hard work were wasted. But the financial cost is of little matter compared to the cost to the image of the Security Department and, naturally, the Jockey Club.

 Security manager Peter Palmer induced Chan to make a self-incriminating statement by saying that two other jockeys had already 'turned him in'.

 Chan had not been properly advised of his rights and, in particular, that he could remain silent.

 It was an alarming incident that calls into question the manner in which the Jockey Club's Security Department discharges its duties and obligations.

 Even given the evidence the Security Department felt it had and the deep necessity to keep Hong Kong racing clean, there is still no excuse for violating a suspect's rights.

 After Judge Poon freed Chan last week, the Jockey Club was left counting the cost in credibility and integrity.

 It was not only Palmer who was in the spotlight. Assistant security manager Eddie Heung Wai-man told Chan before a video interview that the case would remain an internal matter of the Club. He had promised that anything Chan said that was self-incriminating would not be used against him.

 Heung denied he had said this but judge Poon ruled that the evidence obtained in this interview was also inadmissible 'on grounds of inducement'. Heung's courtroom denials were not believed.

 Last week's proceedings coldly revealed the modus operandi of the Security Department. But not for the first time.

 The bland assurances that it would 'go no further' have been heard before.

 Darren Gauci, the Australian jockey who rode here some seasons ago, gave what he was told was an 'off the record' interview to Palmer only to have it used against him later when his application for a licence came up.

 Those of us who have been around Hong Kong racing for a long time are under no illusions about how difficult it can be to police a sport that attracts hundreds of millions of dollars twice-weekly.

 It is a difficult business. And it is not for everybody. But those who do undertake the responsibility must surely know exactly what lies in store. They are experienced - and they do know the rules. Or certainly should.

 It is hopefully not being sanctimonious to suggest that Palmer and Heung both violated those rules and must have known they were doing so.

 When a court rules as it did last week, the immediate reaction is to wonder how often it may have happened in the past. Was this simply an isolated incident? Or are Security Department suspects routinely not advised of their rights?  There is no escaping the fact that the Security Department has been damaged by last week's court ruling.

 That is no cause for anything other than concern. As has been seen before, and recent criminal convictions of former jockeys have shown, the need for vigilance is paramount.

 But a greater need, or requirement, is that those whose duty it is to protect Hong Kong racing are themselves beyond reproach.



Security personnel must play by the rules