Harness racing driver Mathew Neilson’s perjury trial begins

A renowned Ipswich harness racing driver perjured himself by lying to the CCC, a court has been told, but his defence claims he was at ‘cross-purposes’ with his questioner.

A renowned Ipswich harness racing driver perjured himself by telling the Crime and Corruption Commission he was unaware of “match-fixing” in the sport when he had participated in it at least twice, his trial has heard.

Hatton Vale man Mathew Peter Neilson, 38, was charged with perjury on September 20, 2018, the first time the charge had been levelled in relation to coercive powers bestowed by the Racing Integrity Act.

Crown prosecutor Ben Jackson told jurors on Tuesday in the Brisbane District Court, day one of an expected three-day trial, that Mr Neilson, one of the most celebrated drivers in the industry, knowingly gave false statements under oath to a CCC hearing on January 13, 2017.

Mr Jackson told the court that during the hearing, Mr Neilson, in response to being asked whether he was aware of any “race or match-fixing” in the sport, replied that he “did not participate in it”.

Harness racing driver Mathew Peter Neilson is seen leaving the Brisbane Magistrates Court in Brisbane, Wednesday, September 26, 2018. (AAP Image/Darren England)

Mr Jackson said Mr Neilson then told the hearing he was aware of other “hot races”, but that that was the business of other people.

“That was a lie and he knew it to be a lie,” Mr Jackson argued.

He said the Crown would rely on admissions Mr Neilson was said to make in a subsequent CCC hearing on November 1, 2017.

At that subsequent hearing, Mr Jackson said, Mr Neilson was played two excerpts of telephone conversations, intercepted by police, and then was asked whether his evidence would change in light of that material.

Mr Jackson told the court Mr Neilson then admitted to the CCC he was involved in two fixed races, in June and July 2016.

Mr Jackson argued that subsequent admission proved Mr Neilson perjured himself at the January 13 hearing, as he had told the commission’s presiding officer he “did not participate” in match, or race, fixing.

In his opening address to the jury, defence counsel Timothy Ryan told the court the charge of perjury hinged on the “precision of language”.

“It is all about a witness knowing exactly what it is they’re being asked about when they’re giving evidence,” Mr Ryan said.

He said there were three key points on which the jury’s verdict would hinge on.

Firstly, whether Mr Neilson was “actually asked whether he was aware of match-fixing conduct”.

“How can he be guilty of saying something in evidence when he was actually never asked about it?” Mr Ryan said.

Secondly, whether Mr Neilson and his interlocutor were at “cross-purposes”, in that they both ascribed a different definition to the concept of race or match-fixing.

Finally, whether the answers Mr Neilson gave on November 1, which the Crown alleged proved Mr Neilson’s perjury, were “actually inconsistent” with Mr Neilson’s evidence on January 13.

The trial before Judge Richard Jones continues.