Ben Currie issued show cause notice by Racing Queensland; has potential to halt training operation

Ben Currie’s Toowoomba operation may get stuck behind the barriers and come to a shuddering halt after Racing Queensland issued a show cause notice to the trainer.

In the wake of another stay being granted by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to Ben Currie, Racing Queensland is understood to have issued a show cause notice to the trainer on Thursday night as to why it should not invoke a rule that effectively means his nominations will be refused.

AR55(1) states a Principal Racing Authority may decline to receive or after receiving reject any nomination in their absolute discretion and without giving reasons for so doing.

Currie has been given until 2pm next Friday, April 26, to provide a response as to why the rule should not be invoked.

Currie’s solicitor Michael O’Connor confirmed to AAP he had received a letter from RQ but said he could comment no further.

Currie is facing 37 charges issues by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and has signalled his intention to plead not guilty to all charges, having maintained his innocence since the outset of the inquiry.

INSIDE STORY: THE TRUE COST OF THE BEN CURRIE SAGA

FALLOUT: BOYCOTT LOOMS FOR CONTROVERSIAL TRAINER

Racing Queensland is understood to have issued a show cause notice to Ben Currie as to why it should not invoke a rule that effectively means his nominations will be refused.

The RQ letter, which was signed by Chief Operating Officer Adam Wallish, said Currie’s “ongoing participation in racing is eroding public confidence in the racing industry in Queensland”.

The notice said RQ “makes no judgment in relation to the allegations made in the charges”, but noted the circumstances that gave rise to the laying of the charges, the number of charges laid, the serious nature of the charges and the long standing nature of them, Currie’s position as a leading trainer in Queensland and the fact he is not permitted to nominate horses in New South Wales.

The letter is in stark contrast to a ruling made by QCAT Member Steven Holzberger earlier in the day to grant Currie a stay on the suspension of his license issued by QRIC in February.

Member Holzberger said Currie’s ongoing participation did not undermine the integrity of the sport.

Currie won a third stay of proceedings in the past 11 months at QCAT, after stewards suspended his license in February, following the laying of seven charges against the trainer. The most serious of these included allegations of using a jigger, after text messages referring to “harped up” were discovered as part of the ongoing 2018 Weetwood day investigation.

Today’s stay hearing gives Currie the right to continue training until an appeal against an Internal Review decision on this matter is heard at QCAT. A directions hearing has been ordered.

Ben Currie gave evidence during his QCAT hearing via phone from Bali.

Currie gave evidence via phone from Bali, something Holzberger admonished him for, but ultimately determined did not affect his ruling.

Holzberger said there was a “very heavy Balance of Convenience consideration” to Currie if he is ultimately cleared of the charges, given his the number of staff he employs and the likely loss of his business if he was stood down.

“I can’t see how granting the stay undermines the integrity of racing, particularly when none of the charges have been proven,” Member Holzberger said.

In giving evidence, Currie told QRIC’s counsel Scott McLeod “I don’t know how a jigger is used.”

“I assume you just hit the horse with it and give it a shock,” he said.

“I think it’s pointless. A horse can only run so fast.”

In explaining what he meant by the texts that included references to harp, Currie said there was nothing sinister.

“Change our technique a little and fine tune him to get a result for the owner,” he said of its meaning.

McLeod later noted evidence given by a number of jockeys and trainers in what they understood the term harp or its derivatives to mean.

McLeod submitted Currie’s explanation of what he meant by “harped up” was “utter nonsense when you look at the totality of the evidence.”

“Mr Currie is the odd man out here. People who have worked in his stables have a very different meaning to harp,” he said.

“His evidence is not believable. It’s farcical when you have all this evidence from all these other people. It’s not believable.”

Currie’s counsel Jim Murdoch said the explanations offered by the trainers and jockeys weren’t universal in linking “harp” to a jigger.

Ben Currie (right) with Tony Khoury and Bobby El-Issa after winning in the 2018 Weetwood Handicap.

The QC put it to Currie that Tom Button had said harp could mean jiggers or spurs, to which the trainer responded: “It’s similar to what I’ve been saying the whole time. It could mean different things,” he said.

Murdoch said an affidavit submitted by Currie’s solicitor Michael O’Connor, which included sworn statements from James Orman, Luke Dittman, Luke Tarrant, Tom Button and Brent Evans was “compelling.”

“Each and every one denied Currie had ever asked them to use (a jigger) or use it on his behalf,” he said.

“There is an abundance of evidence from jockeys and trackwork riders that it didn’t happen.

“There is not a skerrick of material to support an animal cruelty charge.”

Ray Murrihy, a steward from 1970 to 2016, including the last 20 years at the helm in New South Wales, was present at QCAT on Thursday, but not called to give sworn evidence.

Reference was made to his affidavit, where he stated he was familiar with the term harp and in his experience it meant to “impart a significant electrical shock.”

He further stated in his time he had never heard harp used in the context of describing the training performance of a horse.

Holzberger earlier dealt with his annoyance at Currie giving evidence via phone from another country, noting he did not have an order granting him leave before he went to Bali last Saturday.

“That application caused me some irritation,” Holzberger told both parties.

“It was a date Mr Currie asked for. The evidence by Currie on the telephone hasn’t assisted him and his approach to proceedings is cavalier.

“I don’t think it will affect the final decision (but) the kindest thing to say is that it’s Mr Currie’s mistake and he should have owned it.”