Oisin Murphy gets away with a slap on the wrist as BHA refuse to take stronger action
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
'HAVE you been waiting long?'
Oisin Murphy seemed pretty relaxed as he greeted a group of photographers who were waiting for him to arrive at Reading Magistrates' Court on Thursday lunchtime.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
2
Oisin Murphy pleaded guilty to drink driving on Thursday
Credit: PA
His arrival had been signalled when his driver was spotted peering around a corner to check if the coast was clear. It wasn't.
There was barely a spare seat in the public gallery as Oisin was called into Court 3, where one member of the press raised concerns to the clerk about being able to hear what was being said.
'There are microphones,' he replied. 'And there is nowhere else for you to go, unless you want to go in the dock?'
While many in the racing fraternity would probably enjoy seeing journos up in front of the beak, the moment of levity lasted briefly as we were all here for a very serious reason.
Oisin only spoke to confirm details such as his name and date of birth, and to plead guilty to drink driving after he crashed a Mercedes into a tree just after midnight on April 27.
He was only breathalysed by cops SEVEN hours after the crash, and he was still nearly twice the legal limit at seven in the morning.
It is unclear why he wasn't asked for a plea on the second charge — failing to provide a sample at the roadside — which was described as a 'misunderstanding' by the prosecutor Richard Atkins.
The resulting sentence was a 20-month driving ban and a £70,000 fine. For a very wealthy young jockey who has his own driver, you could argue it's no more than a firm slap on the wrist.
I found it most surprising the BHA, bar adding some new conditions to Oisin's licence and expressing their 'disappointment', have decided to take no further action. For now, at least.
As I mentioned last week, time and again his issues have been brushed under the carpet and others have fallen over themselves to make excuses for him.
A glaring example came on last weekend's Luck On Sunday show, when Jayne McGivern, a stud owner who is overseeing a multi-million pound construction project in Saudia Arabia, gave her view.
She said: 'He's a wonderful guy, an absolute superstar. Jockeys risk their lives every time they get on a horse. We can't possibly understand the pressures.
'He has battled demons and sometimes the demons win. We need more understanding and empathy in this case for Oisin.
'It didn't happen on a racecourse or near a horse. It's his private life and it's nothing to do with us.'
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with so many in this sport — especially racing's elite or establishment figures.
They do not take it seriously, many excuse and indulge Oisin and, quite frankly, enable his destructive behaviour.
And Joe Public can't possibly criticise or comment because, well, jockeys are under pressure. Another excuse.
I'm of the view that this 'nothing to see here' attitude sends a message to Oisin that he can keep pushing the limits while retaining all his privilege, which is a very dangerous place to be.
So I'm not sure why the BHA felt it wasn't necessary to take firmer action — I think it's weak and I don't think it's helpful to Oisin.
After all, they were the ones who put conditions on his licence in the first place when he returned from his ban in February 2023 and emphasised the strict requirement to 'remain sober'.
There are plenty of examples out there of tough BHA action but here is one I thought I'd share, for all it's not a perfect comparison.
In 2020, they banned conditional jockey Callum McKinnes for 56 days for a riding offence which the judicial panel said brought racing 'into disrepute'. He was riding a 150-1 shot at Hereford that finished a distant fifth, but they reckon he 'should have finished fourth'.
So not riding with enough vigour to finish fourth on a rank outsider is considered disreputable, but crashing a car while carrying a passenger and nearly twice the drink-drive limit isn't? Hmm.
2
The man who took photos of Oisin in court reacts angrily to photographers in Reading
The drama continued after Oisin had left to fly to the US. A member of the public had taken photos of him in court and was hauled into the dock Oisin had just been occupying, given a severe bollocking by the judge and threatened with arrest.
What a circus — which is pretty apt considering the last few years of Oisin's turbulent career.
FREE BETS - GET THE BEST SIGN UP DEALS AND RACING OFFERS
Commercial content notice: Taking one of the offers featured in this article may result in a payment to The Sun. You should be aware brands pay fees to appear in the highest placements on the page. 18+. T&Cs apply. gambleaware.org.
Remember to gamble responsibly
A responsible gambler is someone who:
Establishes time and monetary limits before playing
Only gambles with money they can afford to lose
Never chases their losses
Doesn't gamble if they're upset, angry or depressed
Gamcare – www.gamcare.org.uk
Gamble Aware – www.gambleaware.org
Find our detailed guide on responsible gambling practices here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Yvette Cooper is Home Secretary (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice amid a hearing over whether the proscribing of Palestine Action should be temporarily blocked (Lucy North/PA) The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday (Lucy North/PA) In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday (Lucy North/PA) In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
