Stewards set to resume inquiry into altercation between jockeys Noel Callow and Kyle Wilson-Taylor during Stradbroke week
Group 1 winner Noel Callow has been sidelined under concussion protocols after being involved in the altercation with fellow Group 1-winning jockey Kyle Wilson-Taylor in a dramatic incident at the midweek Doomben races on May 28.
A stewards inquiry kicked off on the day but was unable to take evidence from Callow who had left the course to seek medical attention.
Wilson-Taylor insisted he had not been the initial aggressor.
Senior steward Geoff Goold confirmed to Racenet that it was the intention to reconvene the stewards' inquiry on Tuesday at Doomben.
Meanwhile, young jockey George Rooke was suspended for 14 days for careless riding after an incident in the Group 1 Queensland Oaks at Eagle Farm on Saturday.
Rookie, a British-born jockey who has called New Zealand home for several months, was riding Kiwi filly She's A Dealer in the Oaks.
She's A Dealer finished fifth behind Oaks winner You Wahng but caused interference to Real Class (Andrew Mallyon) passing the 350m.
Meanwhile, Victorian jockey Jamie Mott was suspended for 11 days for careless riding as stewards reconvened an inquiry into an incident in the Group 1 Doomben 10,000 on May 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Izak Rankine's ban for homophobic slur: What was the AFL supposed to do?
COMMENT In the end the AFL managed to upset everyone. Make no mistake, Izak Rankine would not have gone to bed last night feeling any better about himself after being given a four-game suspension for using a homophobic slur against a Collingwood player last weekend. His personal reputation is in tatters, he may have ruined his club's best chance to win a premiership in three decades and the ban still almost certainly ends his season. Crows fans won't feel any less despondent today knowing Rankine could be available for a grand final if their team loses in week one of the postseason and then wins its way through to the decider. The Adelaide Football Club, tarnished again by one of its star's loose tongues, might have strengthened its relationship with a player critical to its long-term future by risking public scorn to have his back. But the Crows will be hyper-conscious of the damage to their brand corporately and fear a season they waited so long for has been derailed. The other 17 clubs - even those who will benefit from having Rankine removed from the Crows line-up - will know this entire mess could be there's to deal with next. The 25-year-old is the sixth player in the past two seasons to be suspended for a homophobic slur, there's no reason to think he's the last. The LGBT community will have a right to feel abandoned again, knowing a perceived discount was given to someone who used the most offensive language. Even the section of the footy world who believes what's said on the field should stay on the field were inflamed when the AFL revealed it had considered 'compelling medical advice' when deciding to give Rankine four games instead of the expected five. If there's anything that group dislikes more than players missing games for something they said in the heat of battle is players reportedly using the mental health card. And then you have the league itself, which was torn to shreds on Friday night. Collingwood great Tony Shaw branded the AFL 'incompetent', 'amateurish' and 'laughable'. Longtime commentator Gerard Whateley called it a 'disappointing moment from a disappointing administration'. '(AFL CEO Andrew) Dillon and his legal team should have travelled to Adelaide on Tuesday and sat with the Crows administration,' Whateley said on SEN. 'Dillon should have said the penalty is five weeks now let's hear your submissions. 'Dillon should have followed up with the penalty is five weeks now let's hear your appeal. 'And finally Dillon should have said the penalty is five weeks now let's go and front the press conference.' Former Crows player Josh Jenkins called the saga 'embarrassing all round' and Hawthorn legend Jason Dunstall declared on Fox Footy 'they're almost a victim of their own wokeness … they don't want to offend anyone and in doing so they've offended everybody.' In fairness to the league there are no winners in situations like this and for anyone still fuming about the decision there's just one question to ask - what was the AFL supposed to do?
News.com.au
6 hours ago
- News.com.au
Childcare worker phone ban, national register to dominate Friday's education ministers meeting
State and federal education ministers will discuss progress on a nationwide mobile phone ban for early childcare workers, among a range of other measures aimed at bolstering safety at centres. States, including South Australia, Victoria and most recently Western Australia, have already gone further with a total ban on personal mobile phones in centres, however all states and territories agreed to the voluntary Model Code set by the Commonwealth. The federal code restricts educators and workers from taking photo and videos on their personal devices. However, centre-issued devices are exempt from the rule. Other measures set to dominate the meeting, which will be held in Sydney on Friday, include funding a National Educator Register to ensure workers who fail to meet standards can't bypass state jurisdictions, tougher penalties to deter noncompliance and mandatory child safety training for all staff. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare will also propose a funding package of up to $189m over four years to implement the changes. The special meeting of education ministers follows a string of child abuse and sexual assault allegations, including Melbourne former childcare worker Joshua Brown who faces more than 70 charges. Australian Federal Police officers allege NSW worker David William James produced child abuse material of 10 victims, the oldest being six years old. As a result, the Commonwealth passed laws which would cut off funding to centres which repeatedly breached standards, plus allow compliance officers to conduct checks without prior warning. Mr Clare said Friday's meeting would discuss the 'next step' in ensuring safety standards in centres. 'No parent should ever have to wonder if their child is safe when they drop them off at child care,' he said. 'We need a national register to ensure we know who is caring for our children and their work history.' He also flagged mandatory child safety training as another priority. 'The overwhelming majority of childcare workers are awesome at what they do caring for and educating our children. They are just as angry as everyone else,' he said. 'They're our best asset here and we need to back them with the skills to spot when something isn't right. 'We also need to ban personal phones and ramp up inspections to make sure centres are up to scratch.' Early Childhood Education Minister Jess Walsh conceded 'there was more to do'. 'Our action supports the overwhelming majority of educators and providers who do the right thing and shuts the door on people and providers who do harm,' she said. 'Our investment of up to $184m is the biggest child safety package the early learning sector has ever seen.' The Coalition's education and early learning spokesman Jonno Duniam said Friday's meeting must produce 'immediate, consistent reforms'. He said there needed to be a consistent phone ban across all states, and backed South Australia's $50,000 penalties for noncompliance on Model Code. 'Every opportunity to shift the dial should be on the table. This includes considering targets in the extended preschool reform agreement,' he said. 'A national register of childcare workers should have been implemented already, and there must be consistency in the implementation of personal phone bans. 'South Australia is imposing $50,000 penalties for noncompliance to the new code. We want to see all states and territories follow suit.'
News.com.au
7 hours ago
- News.com.au
The question Bruce Lehrmann was asked after solicitor's bold claim
Bruce Lehrmann has been asked by journalists whether he was okay as he exited court on Thursday afternoon, after his solicitor told an appeal hearing into his defamation suit loss that reporters didn't have anything nice to say about him. Justice Michael Lee last year found that Lehrmann – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – had raped his colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019. Lehrmann sued Lisa Wilkinson and Ten over Higgins' The Project interview but Justice Lee made damning findings against him and he was subsequently ordered to pay $2m in Ten's legal costs. The former Liberal staffer has now appealed Justice Lee's decision and was represented by solicitor Zali Burrows at an appeal hearing before the Full Court of the Federal Court over the last two days. Ten was represented by Dr Matt Collins SC while barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC appeared for Ms Wilkinson. 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann emerged from the court complex on Thursday afternoon alongside his solicitor. He had been present in the court, sitting at the bar table next to Burrows, for the first day and a half of the appeal hearing. But was not inside courtroom 21 after the lunch break on Thursday afternoon. Lehrmann remained inside the court complex for the afternoon session and emerged alongside Burrows. Burrows told the court late on Thursday afternoon that the media pack was not 'going to have anything nice to say to him' or 'even ask are you okay?' As he left the court he was peppered with questions by the media including 'Do you think you made your case?' and 'How do you think the last two days went?' He was also asked: 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann did not answer questions as he walked through the media pack and down Macquarie St. Nothing nice to say Burrows has ended the hearing by claiming that none of the journalists waiting outside the court for Mr Lehrmann were going to ask if he's okay. The hearing was supposed to go for three days but has wrapped up after two and the court has reserved its decision. Ms Burrows ended by arguing that Justice Lee's findings had taken a toll on him. 'When Mr Lehrmann leaves the court today, I'm pretty sure no one in the back of the court or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have anything nice to say to him,' Ms Burrows said. 'And not even ask are you okay? Justice Craig Colvin interjected: 'Is this a speech or this a submission?' 'If it wasn't so serious' Meanwhile, Brittany Higgins has made a cryptic Instagram post while the case was going on. Ms Higgins has not been present at the Federal Court for the appeal, which is unsurprising given she is not a party to the proceedings. 'I'm struggling to understand' Burrows has been pulled up by a judge after she suggested that Lehrmann was given a 'consolation prize'. She argued that Justice Lee 'made a new case up?' Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'What new case? You tell me what new case?' Burrows continued: 'It was asserted against Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature. Whereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.' Wigney: 'I don't think his honour A) said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape. He made findings about what happened and what Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was. I'm struggling to understand by what you mean that it was a new case.' Justice Wigney said Justice Lee made some findings in Lehrmann's favour after he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of some of Ten's and Wilkinson's claims. Burrows said: 'He should have just found 'that did not occur to the way that she (Ms Higgins) said'. Instead it's like he's given a consolation prize.' Judge Craig Colvin: 'The subject matter does not merit that kind of …' Ms Burrows then said: 'Sorry, your honour.' Burrows cut off Burrows has been cut off by one of the justices overseeing the appeal after making a submission about loud music and screaming inside the ministerial suite. She is arguing that Lehrmann had 'no opportunity' to contradict the version of events found by Justice Lee. Burrows said: 'There were no submissions by Ms Wilkinson and Ten on that case. There were no submissions put to the judge on this. Generally, we say that Mr Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version — that the judge had found — against Mr Lehrmann had been put to him at the beginning. Justice Michael Wigney: 'How?' Burrows replied: 'It could have been, depending on the particular type of allegations, what witnesses could have been called.' Wigney said: 'We're talking about while they were alone in the ministerial suite? Now let's put aside the calling of further witnesses, how could he have conducted his case differently? 'Your Honour, going back on that, let's just say (there was) a version of what happened that there was loud music playing and screaming or something else happening, then he could have called …,' Ms Burrows said. Wigney said: 'This appears entirely hypothetical because no one was suggesting that version of events and no one found that version of events.' Lehrmann absent Lehrmann has sat beside Burrows at the bar table for the first day and a half of the appealing hearing. However he was absent from the courtroom after lunch and is nowhere to be seen. Burrows grilled Burrows is being pressed by one of the three judges overseeing the appeal her claim that Lehrmann was not afforded procedural fairness. She has claimed that some of Justice Lee's findings were different from the case put forward by Ten and Wilkinson and it was not cross examined on them. But Justice Michael Wigney argued that the imputations were not important, but the 'defamatory sting' that he raped his colleague was the 'essential' part of the case. 'Yes, but it comes back down to surely it would have been in the realm of the way the case was pleaded as to what the allegations were,' Burrows argued. 'The way it was pleaded, those imputations pleaded different things such as a forceful rape.' 'Additional time' We've had a delay in the hearing on Thursday after Burrows asked the court for an adjournment. Ms Burrows is due to make oral submissions to the court on the topic of Ten and Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence, which failed at trial. Wilkinson is now attempting to have that finding overturned. Ms Burrows on Thursday afternoon asked the court for an adjournment so that she could begin tomorrow morning. 'Can we commence this tomorrow morning at 10.15, we just require some additional time,' Ms Burrows said. 'I'm also instructed that there's been some assertions in respect of the transcript which may not be correct, we need this time to check.' Justice Michael Wigney denied that request. Ms Burrows began her arguments but shortly after asked for an early lunch break. The court will return at 2.15pm. 'Run a red light' Lehrmann's lawyer has questioned whether Wilkinson would have run a red light if her lawyers told her it was legal. In his trial judgment, Justice Lee made adverse findings against Ms Wilkinson and Ten after she made a Logies speech referencing Higgins' allegations on the eve of Lehrmann's criminal trial. The speech resulted in Chief Justice Lucy McCallum delaying the trial by three months. Ms Chrysanthou has told the court that Ms Wilkinson made the speech after being given repeated legal advice by the network's lawyers, as she argued she acted reasonably. But Ms Burrows said that argument raised the question whether Wilkinson would break the law if her lawyer told her it was okay. '(Wilkinson argues) she is not a lawyer and relied upon the advice of lawyers in respect of the program,' Ms Burrows said in her written submissions. 'This raises the question was it reasonable to rely upon legal advice when in the face of it is plainly wrong, which raises the proposition, if a lawyer tells you that you can run a red light, would you do it? 'With respect to Ms Wilkinson, a sophisticated highly intelligent and experienced journalist, it appears disingenuous to claim that she would follow the advice of lawyers notwithstanding it was obviously bad advice.' 'Whodunnit' Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer has argued that he was not named in The Project broadcast because they were trying to create a 'whodunnit'. Ms Wilkinson has argued that she acted reasonably when preparing the broadcast and has challenged Justice Lee's finding that their qualified privilege defence had failed. Ms Chrysanthou has pointed out that Lehrmann was not named by The Project - but accepts he was identifiable to a small number of people. However, in her written submissions — which were published by the court on Thursday — Ms Burrows argues Ten and Wilkinson did not name him for 'disingenuous' purposes. 'Mr Lehrmann does not agree with Ms Wilkinson's assertion it was a factor to consider on assessing reasonableness, that in effect she should be commended for not naming Mr Lehrmann in the program is viewed is disingenuous, and viewed as a crafted strategy to maximise the ratings of a story, to achieve an exciting air of mystery akin to a 'whodunnit', a common phrase used to ask who committed a crime with the effect of provoking a greater public interest to 'create chatter' a 'buzz', placing the primary focus on the identity of the alleged perpetrator, arguably highlighting the sensationalism of a complex plot-driven story involving political scandal cover up of a rape in Parliament,' she wrote. 'Cover up' Ms Chrysanthou has told the court Justice Lee in his finding was 'distracted' by the 'so-called cover-up' allegation. In his judgment, Justice Lee wrote that 'the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif' of The Project broadcast. Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Wednesday: 'His Honour should have been more open to the reasonableness finding because that's an acceptance of the fact because the program really wasn't about Mr Lehrmann.' She also disputed Justice Lee's finding that the broadcast made allegations of 'corrupt conduct'. Ms Chrysanthou said the cover-up allegations would be relevant if Ms Wilkinson considered Higgins' rape allegations 'absurd and fanciful'. 'That just wasn't the way His Honour addressed it,' Ms Chrysanthou said. Justice Michael Wigney said: 'It's of some relevance is it not? 'Because His Honour's reasoning was, given the way this story has been initially presented by (Higgins' partner) Mr (David) Sharaz in particular - that is that it was a political bombshell so to speak - that should have caused her to be even more cautious about her underlying allegation. 'You can't completely disassociate the two.' Qualified privilege Justice Lee did make adverse findings against Wilkinson and Ten after their qualified privilege defence failed. Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation but relies on whether the publisher's conduct was 'reasonable'. Wilkinson is appealing against that and Ms Chrysanthou is arguing that her client acted reasonably when preparing the Project broadcast. 'There was a huge amount of communication between the producers that Ms Wilkinson was excluded from,' Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Thursday. Ten say Lehrmann was 'totally unreliable' Lehrmann has asked that Justice Lee's findings be overturned on appeal, arguing that they differed from the case pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson, as well as the oral evidence at trial. However in the written submissions which were, on Thursday, released by the court, Ten's legal team of Dr Collins and Tim Senior argue: 'None of these submissions is correct.' They say it was not an 'exceptional case' where Justice Lee could not have been able to make findings either way about whether Lehrmann and Higgins should be believed. 'Rather, the primary judge found Mr Lehrmann to be a totally unreliable witness, while being forcefully struck by the credibility of Ms Higgins' oral evidence of the sexual assault,' Ten says in their submissions. Lehrmann contends he was denied 'procedural fairness' because some of Justice Lee's findings were never put to him when he was on the witness stand. It's a proposition that Ten attacked, saying that from the outset of the case they had put forth an alternative case that Higgins was too drunk to give consent. 'He was extensively cross-examined as to his knowledge of Ms Higgins' state of intoxication,' they said. During the trial, Dr Collins asked: 'Now, Mr Lehrmann, did you at any time seek Ms Higgins' consent to have sexual intercourse with you?' Lehrmann replied: 'I didn't have sexual intercourse with her.' 'Denial of natural justice' Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that Lehrmann was the victim of procedural unfairness because the findings of Justice Lee were different to the case put forward at trial. 'It's a really, serious unfair denial of natural justice if Mr Lehrmann goes through a trial where it's said 'you are accused of A, B, D, E to Ms Higgins, this is the way it happened. And the judge finds 'well I don't find any of those A, B, C, D, E',' Ms Burrows said. However Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'That's not what happened. He did a find … it was A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I … A number of the matters alleged and particularised were found.' Ms Burrows further argued that it was pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson as a 'violent rape' but Justice Lee found it was a 'non-violent rape'. Justice Craig Colvin replied: 'I'm not sure he found a non-violent rape and I'm not sure that's a concept that I understand.' Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was 'taken by surprise' that Justice Lee made findings that differed from Ms Higgins' account and 'he came up with a different version, a softer version.' 'Australia's most hated man' In his judgment, Justice Lee found that Lehrmann could have only been awarded $20,000 had he won the trial. However Ms Burrows said he should be awarded a substantial amount if he had the findings overturned on appeal. She has pointed to media coverage of the trial, 'social media insults he gets' and other 'harassment'. 'He's pretty much become the national joke,' Ms Burrows said. 'As I previously submitted to this court, he's probably Australia's most hated man.' Ten attack's Lehrmann's 'astonishing' claim Dr Collins on Wednesday attacked Lehrmann's argument that he might have given different evidence had he known the findings that Justice Lee was going to make. At trial, Lehrmann told the court that he had no sexual contact with Ms Higgins at Parliament House. Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that he was the victim of procedural fairness and was surprised by Justice Lee's findings. But Dr Collins attacked that argument as 'astonishing' given that he has persistently claimed that he did not have sex with Ms Higgins. 'Our learned friend said today at the bar table that well the unfairness resides in the fact they might have called further evidence, although she backed away from that when questioned about that evidence might have been,' Dr Collins said. 'There were only two people in the room. 'But she said Mr Lehrmann's evidence might have been different. 'That's, with respect, an astonishing submission. 'It could only be that had the pleading alleged a sexual assault in which consent was in question, he would have conceded having sexual intercourse with her and argued that he had her consent or thought he had her consent.'
