Non Raceday Inquiry – HRNZ v JT Peary – 25 November 2010 – Decision dated March 2011
ID: JCA10660
Decision:
Rules:
1001(1)(q) (Penalty Rules) 1001(2), 1001(3),
1004(6) (Penalty Rules), 1004(7) & 1004(8)
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT CAMBRIDGE
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN Mr THOMAS RODNEY CARMICHAEL (on behalf of HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND)
Informant
AND Mr John Terrick Peary
Public Trainer
Defendant
Information No’s: 68690 and 68914
Venue: Cambridge Raceway, Cambridge
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman), BJ Rowe (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr TR Carmichael for the Informant,
Mr JT Peary in person,
Mr AJ Ryan as Counsel for Mr Peary
Ms LS Edwards (Witness for the Informant)
Mr PJ Alpe (Witness for the Informant)
Mr D Buckley (Witness for the Defendant)
Mr T Shaw (Witness for the Defendant)
Plea: (i) Charge under Rule 1001(1)(q) – withdrawn
(ii) Charge under Rule 1004(6) – not admitted
Date of Hearing: 25 November 2010
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1.1 First Mr Carmichael sought leave to withdraw the Information under number 68690 and this was withdrawn by consent.
1.2 Pursuant to Information 68914 Mr Peary was charged that on the 2 July at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville he committed a breach of Rule 1004(6) in that during a day of racing he did administer by nasal gastric tube a substance containing sodium bicarbonate to the horse Machabella, which was to start in race five at a Race Meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park and is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1004(7) and 1004(8).
1.3 Mr Carmichael sought leave to amend the penalty provisions in that charge by substituting Rule 1003(1) for 1004(7).
Mr Ryan consented to the amendment and advised this Committee that his Client did not admit the charge.
1.4 Mr Peary acknowledged that he had been served with not only the charges but had been provided copies of the relevant Rules.
1.5 Mr Carmichael presented written authority from the General Manager of HRNZ to proceed with the charges against Mr Peary.
Evidence for Informant
2.1 Mr Carmichael in his opening statement said that the charge that Mr Peary now faces relates to the race day tubing of a horse which was to race at Alexandra Park on the 2 July 2010. He said that it was to be alleged that Mr Peary tubed the horse prior to it leaving to go to race at Alexandra Park and that the horse was tested at Auckland and subsequently returned an elevated TCO2 level for which the Trainer Ms Leanne Edwards had been dealt with.
Mr Carmichael advised the Committee that he would be calling Ms Edwards as a Witness as well as Mr Paul Alpe, the TAB Auditor who would give evidence in relation to betting on a TAB telephone account and Mr Carmichael would also give evidence following his interview with Mr Peary and he would be producing the documentary evidence to this Committee.
2.2 Mr Carmichael then called Ms Leanne Shirley Edwards and her evidence was as follows:
I live at 12C Davie Street, Morrinsville.
On the 2 July 2010 I held a Public Trainer’s Licence under the Rules of Harness Racing, at that time I had been licenced since 1985. I was the trainer of the standardbred horse Machabella. At that time I was training from the Morrinsville Trotting Club complex at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville.
On 2 July 2010 Machabella started in Race 5 at a race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park. All horses in race five were pre-race blood tested for TCO2 levels. The sample taken from Machabella at Alexandra Park subsequently recorded an official TCO2 level of 38.0 mmol/L.
As a consequence of that elevated TCO2 level I was charged under the Rules of Harness Racing with a breach of Rule 1004(6). I appeared before a Judicial Committee at Cambridge on 30 September 2010 when I admitted the breach of the Rule. I was disqualified for a period of eight months and ordered to pay $250 costs to the Judicial Control Authority.
Prior to 30 September 2010 I shared a barn at Scott Reserve with another Trainer, Mr John Peary, the Defendant in these proceedings.
At about 4.20pm on 2 July 2010 I was at the barn, brushing down Machabella prior to travelling to Alexandra Park. John Peary had previously asked me if I wanted Machabella tubed. I agreed. I bought a packet of baking soda from my local dairy. I took this to the barn with me on 2 July 2010.
John Peary mixed the stuff up in a small white bucket. Apart from the baking soda, I don’t know what else went into the mixture. He had a length of clear plastic tube, the small bucket and a green plastic funnel. I held Machabella while John Peary administered the liquid via the plastic tube through the nostril of the horse. This practice is referred to as “milkshaking” a horse and I knew that it was a breach of the Rules.
I did not make up the mixture that was administered to the horse. John Peary did this. I did not clean up the tubing gear and I have not seen it since 2 July 2010. I have handed Mr Carmichael a small white bucket which is similar to the small bucket in which Mr Peary prepared the Mixture.
When the horse was blood tested at Alexandra Park I knew that I would be in trouble. I rang John Peary from the track and advised him that the horse had been blood tested. He just said not to worry about it – we will just wait and see what happens – we have got to stick together on this.
I am certain that John Peary knew that the horse was Machabella and that it was to race at Alexandra Park that night. My trailer float was hooked up to my vehicle and my race cart was alongside the horse float. As soon as the horse was tubed I loaded it onto the float and left a short time later to travel to Alexandra Park.
John Peary had also asked me what race the horse was in; what it had drawn; and what time it was to race.
I have never asked John Peary to tube any of my horses before 2 July 2010, even for routine saline drenches.
2.3 Mr Carmichael produced Ms Edwards notes of a second interview he had with Ms Edwards following his initial interview with Mr Peary. In that Ms Edwards confirmed that she had rung Mr Peary from the track and told him that the horse had been blood tested and his answer was “don’t worry about it, don’t worry about it”. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she did not ring Mr Peary on the Friday afternoon to come and tube the horse and she said that she was brushing Machabella and getting it ready for the races when he arrived at the stables. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had not touched the tubing gear after the horse was tubed and she has not seen it since.
Ms Edwards also said that Mr Peary knew what the horse was and knew that it was going to the races because not only had the horse been groomed but her float was hooked up to her car and the race cart and gear were next to the float and that Mr Peary was there when Ms Edwards loaded the horse on to the float.
2.4 Under cross examination from Mr Ryan, Ms Edwards spoke about the colour of her horses and she also confirmed that she has never been taught how to drench a horse and doesn’t know how to do it. Ms Edwards also said that she had not used Mr Peary to drench horses for her but if a horse is sick then she gets a vet to it. Ms Edwards also said that a local Trainer Mr S had never touched her horses. Ms Edwards also said that when she called Mr Peary from the race track he was at home because she spoke to him on the landline. An earlier call that she had made the day before to Mr Peary was on his cellphone and she did not know where he was. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had rang Mr Peary and asked him to tube Machabella and had told Mr Peary that he was racing at Auckland on the Friday night.
Ms Edwards also said that she did not make up the mixture and that Mr Peary had done that. She acknowledged that she had bought the bicarbonate of soda and she said again that Mr Peary had mixed the ingredients together. Ms Edwards also said that another local Trainer, Mr B has never touched or tubed her horses.
Ms Edwards answered questions concerning the stable set up and the smoko room and said that some of the tubing gear was kept in the fridge.
Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had telephoned Mr Peary after the horse was pre-race tested and was told “we will just wait and see what happens, we have got to stick together on this.” Ms Edwards said that her partner had nothing to do with the tubing and in answer to a further question she said that she had put $10.00 each way on her horse. Ms Edwards confirmed that she had a horse racing at Cambridge the night before but she also said that she does not normally give her horses a saline drench after the race. If however anything is needed then she buys a tube of electrolytes from a local grain company but it is in a plastic tube with a plunger.
2.5 In re-examination by Mr Carmichael, Ms Edwards confirmed that Mr Peary had previously asked her if she had wanted Machabella tubed and she agreed to it. Ms Edwards confirmed that she rang Mr Peary on the morning of the races to remind him to tube the horse for her but that she had first spoken to him late the previous afternoon about it.
In answer to questions from the Committee Ms Edwards confirmed that she had asked Mr Peary to tube Machabella and she was aware of the timing required for tubing a horse. Ms Edwards also said that she had only one horse racing that night and with Mr Peary and herself sharing a barn they see each other every day.
Ms Edwards also said that she had told Mr Peary prior to tubing the horse what race it was in, what it had drawn and what time it was to race. Ms Edwards then advised the Committee that she had told Mr Peary the night before what time the race was but when he was tubing the horse she told him the barrier position it had drawn.
Mr Ryan queried Ms Edward’s statements concerning the phone call to Mr Peary the previous night.
2.6 Mr Carmichael then called Paul James Alpe to give evidence and he stated:
I am the Investigations and Security Manager, employed by the New Zealand Racing Board at Petone.
On 9 July 2010, at the request of Rod Carmichael (Racecourse Inspector), I checked betting on horse (2) Machabella in race 5 at the race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park on 2 July 2010. In particular I checked betting accounts in the name of the Defendant John Terrick Peary, his wife, Leanne Shirley Edwards and her partner.
Mr Alpe confirmed betting activity in an account in the name of Mr Peary’s wife and gave details of various betting transactions. Mr Alpe also provided audio evidence to the Committee in relation to bets on the night that Machabella raced.
2.7 Mr Carmichael then gave evidence confirming his position as a Racecourse Inspector, employed then by Harness Racing New Zealand.
He said that on 2 July 2010 he was officially present at a race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park and during the course of the meeting he was responsible for the pre-race blood testing of a number of horses. Included were all horses in race 5. The horse Machabella was one of the horses sampled in race 5. Subsequent to the meeting all of the samples were packaged in accordance with the Regulations and forwarded by courier to the Racing Laboratory at Avondale. All samples were received at the Racing Laboratory at midday on 6 July 2010 with all seals intact.
On 7 July 2010 he received advice from the Laboratory of an elevated TCO2 level for the horse Machabella.
As a result, he commenced an investigation, as a TCO2 level is excess of 36.2 mmol/L is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules of Harness Racing.
Mr Carmichael then said that early on the afternoon of 8 July 2010 he interviewed Leanne Edwards at her home. Mr Carmichael produced her statement as an exhibit. He said that subsequently, at about 1645 he interviewed Mr Peary at the barn he shared with Leanne Edwards at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville and he obtained a written statement from Mr Peary. He produced that statement to the Committee and in that statement Mr Peary acknowledged that he had tubed a horse for Ms Edwards on 2 July 2010 and he had used his tubing gear. He said that the mixture was made up when he arrived at the barn and he said he didn’t have a clue what horse was to be tubed nor what was in the mix.
He also said that he did know that Ms Edwards had a horse racing that night but that he did not know that it was the horse that he had tubed. In his statement Mr Peary said that he didn’t ask what the mix was and he also did not bet on Ms Edward’s horse because he does not bet much.
Mr Carmichael then confirmed that at 1235 on 24 August 2010 he served the Informations on Mr Peary at his home address. He said that after he had served the papers Mr Peary said “You have got this wrong I didn’t do anything. You shouldn’t be chasing me I didn’t know what the horse was”.
Mr Carmichael then asked Mr Peary about various bets placed on his wife’s telephone account. He said that he had put bets on for his wife because she was at work.
Mr Peary had also told Mr Carmichael that Ms Edwards did ring him from the track at Auckland but he did not speak to her and he let the phone ring.
Evidence for the Defendant
3.1 Mr Peary was then called to give evidence as follows:
(i) I am a trainer licensed under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand and I operate from Stables at Morrinsville. Those stable adjoin the stables operated by Leanne Edwards.
(ii) I am also employed by the Department of Corrections, supervising community service and I work on Wednesdays to Saturdays from 7.00am until 4.00pm.
(iii) On the 2 of July I finished work, but before I did so I received a telephone call from Leanne asking me to tube her horse once I had finished. My normal practice is to go from work to home and to the stables to feed up.
(iv) I recall making a statement to Mr Carmichael on the 8 of July and what is contained in that statement is correct but I wish to enlarge on it at this stage.
(v) During the course of the telephone conversation I told Leanne that she needed to have everything ready for me given that I had to feed my two horses at the stables and also some cattle that I was running. At that time of the year it is dark shortly after 5.00pm so I didn’t have much time.
(vi) When I arrived at the stables the horse was tied up. Leanne told me that everything was ready. She said the “Jug had been boiled” and she wanted me to pour the hot water into the mix which was in the bucket.
(vii) I duly tubed the horse and went to the feed room and made up my feeds. I went to feed my two horses in the paddock and I saw her drive off in the float. It didn’t register that the horse I had tubed was in the float and I was unaware that she had a horse racing at Auckland that night. I knew that she had raced at Cambridge on the previous night and I thought that what had occurred was that she had asked me to give that horse a drench.
(viii) I have drenched her horses on at least 20 occasions. I have not seen anyone else do so, although I did ask Mr S to do one of her horses once for me.
(ix) At the time I was under a great deal of stress but not as much as my wife whose daughter had been killed in a car crash at the end of April. She had naturally been very upset particularly because of the media attention.
(x) The tube used was mine which is in a fridge in the smoko room. It was not there the next day and I understand that her partner took it and it was some four to six weeks before it was returned.
(xi) I am aware that Leanne did ring me from the track at Auckland but I did not answer my mobile because I did not have it with me when she rang. The call went to missed calls. She did however, make contact with me on my landline later on and told me that she had been blood tested and the horse that I had tubed for her that afternoon was the horse racing. She said she had put bi-crab in the mix and did I think she would get a high reading. I replied that I did not know and really I did not want to know about it as I had enough problems of my own.
(xii) When I returned to the stable the next day I looked for my tubing gear which had gone. I just presumed that Leanne would clean it and put it away as she normally did.
(xiii) Mr Carmichael interviewed me. He asked me where the tubing gear was and I said I had not seen it since I had tubed the horse. The tubing gear did not turn up back at the stable for some four weeks or so. From what I understand it was cleaned up and taken by Leanne’s partner Rex Peni who returned it.
(xiv) Leanne has stated that I have never tubed her horses before the 2 of July. This is simply untrue. Since my step-daughter’s death I had been taking my step-son with me after work to attend to the two horses I had at the stables and on occasions I had been asked by Leanne to drench a horse or horses of hers and my step-son Daniel was aware of this.
(xv) Leanne is an extremely hot-headed person. There was an incident at the stables some two weeks ago, after Leanne had been disqualified, it was a Sunday and she made a statement to me “I don’t care what it takes, I’ll take you down.”
(xvi) The set up at Morrinsville is that there are paddocks which are allocated to the various trainers. Leanne has a mare and foal in a paddock and I understand she has permission to go to the paddock to look after the mare and foal. She has been at the stables, for example on Melbourne Cup day holding her horses. On that occasion Leanne took a pair of shoes over to a neighbouring training facility where her farrier was and then held the horse which was hers while it was being shod. I am not aware as to just who is training her horses at the present time.
(xvii) It can be seen from the TAB records that the account which is in my wife’s name is used very infrequently and only for small amounts. Basically most of the bets that I have are for local horses and by that I mean horses trained by persons at the track at Morrinsville. For example there are bets on the 13 of May; the 11 of June; and the 1 of July on horses trained by Leanne in addition to the bets on the 2 of July. I place these bets just to have an interest but certainly my account shows I am hardly, what is known as, a big punter. When I got home I looked through the racebook and saw that Leanne had a horse racing. I said in my statement that I did not have a bet. By that I meant it was for my wife who gets me to put on bets for her while she is at work at the Hamilton City Council between 4pm and 11pm. She handles emergency calls and although she rings me from time to time she is not permitted to use the Council phone for TAB calls. When work is quiet she has TV and watches Trackside.
(xviii) I say again that I did not know that the horse that I was drenching for Leanne was racing at Alexander Park that night. I did not know also that the drench which Leanne had mixed was bi-carbonate of soda or a milkshake and if I had known that that was the case then I would not have drenched the horse. All her race horses are bays and I have never attempted to distinguish one from the other.
3.2 Mr S then presented his evidence as follows:
(i) I am a trainer licensed under the Rules of New Zealand Harness Racing and I train at Morrinsville.
(ii) I know both Mr Peary and Ms Edwards who have trained at Morrinsville while I have been there.
(iii) I am aware that Ms Edwards is unable to drench a horse and I have seen John Peary drench her horses for her on some occasions. I have also been asked to drench horses by Ms Edwards.
(iv) Mr S in cross examination confirmed that Mr Peary and he were friends. He also said that he was friends with Ms Edwards.
(v) In answer to questions from the Committee Mr S said that the distance from his barn to the Edwards/Peary barn is 300-400 metres away on an angle. He said that he could see Mr Peary drenching Ms Edward’s horses from that distance and he said that he was able to identify the horses as Ms Edwards. Mr S said that he saw Mr Peary drenching the horses in a Lean To at the side of the barn where they tie their horses up.
Mr S said that drenching horses was a routine thing and that 95% of Trainers would drench their own horses and give them a saline drench after a hard run to stop them from getting dehydrated. Mr S said that after a hard workout he might drench the horse 20-30 minutes later but in answer to a further question he said that if a horse had raced on a Thursday night and had had a hard run then he would probably drench it on the following Monday.
(vi) In re-examination Mr S said that there was no hard and fast rule about when to drench a horse but did say that there was a right way and a wrong way and it had to be done correctly.
3.3 Mr B then presented his evidence as follows:
(i) I am a step-son of John Peary.
(ii) I am familiar with the training situation at Morrinsville having been there on a number of occasions with John. I have seen John drench horses for Ms Edwards.
(iii) Mr B said that he had seen John Peary drench horses for Ms Edwards on about five occasions although he could not be exact as to when those occasions were.
(iv) In answer to a question from the Committee Mr B said that he knew which were Ms Edwards horses and which were Mr Peary’s horses.
In answer to a further question he said that the drenching took place inside the barn in one of the stalls. When queried again about the location of the drenching as a result of previous evidence Mr B confirmed that the drenching took place inside the barn.
Summary by Mr Carmichael
4.1 Mr Carmichael said that it was an issue of credibility between Ms Edwards and Mr Peary. He invited the Committee to disregard the conflicting evidence of Mr Peary’s two witnesses. He said that there was no denying that the tubing of the horse Machabella took place on race day and he said that in his submission it was clear that Mr Peary must have or ought to have known with his experience and certainly on the basis of the evidence of Ms Edwards, that he knew that the horse that was being tubed was about to depart for the races at Auckland.
Mr Carmichael also said that he was not asking the Tribunal to believe that Mr Peary instigated the matter but rather that Mr Peary and Ms Edwards agreed to do it together.
Mr Carmichael also referred to the bets on Mrs Peary’s account and said that Mr Peary in his interview had denied placing the bets and it was only when he was confronted with the audio evidence that he said that he had placed the bets on behalf of his wife. Mr Carmichael submitted that if Mr Peary did not lie in his interview then he certainly was unhelpful in relation to whose bets they were.
Submissions by Mr Ryan
5.1 In relation to the bets on Machabella Mr Ryan noted that the bets were placed a short time after Ms Edwards had telephoned Mr Peary. Mr Ryan suggested that an interpretation of the evidence could be that Mr Peary did not know what was in the drench and didn’t know that the horse was starting and only put the bet on after the phone call from the racetrack from Ms Edwards.
Mr Ryan also referred to the size of the bets and the fact that Mr Peary was a small time bettor and suggested that this was a person who was not in co-hoots with the Trainer.
Mr Ryan said that this was clearly a case where there was a conflict of evidence and he suggested that there must be doubt in the Committee’s minds as to guilt or innocence and any doubt must be given to Mr Peary and the charge dismissed.
At the conclusion of the Hearing the Committee advised the parties that it reserved its decision. The Committee wished to assess the application of Rule 1008 to the facts as presented to it.
Rule 1008 provides:
“In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules:
(a) it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and
(b) any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability.
The Committee then invited submissions from both Mr Carmichael and Mr Ryan as to the application of Rule 1008 to this case and a timetable for those submissions was set. Submissions were subsequently received from both Messrs Carmichael and Ryan.
Submissions for the Informant
6.1 Mr Carmichael said that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 1008, it remains the primary position of the Informant that the Defendant knew that the horse he tubed at Morrinsville on 2 July 2010 was Machabella and that it was to race at Alexandra Park that night and well within the 12 hours stipulated in Rule 1004(6). In support of that Mr Carmichael referred to main points in the evidence before the Committee.
A Breach of the Rule
6.2 Rule 1004(6) provides:
“No person shall during any day of racing, in respect of a horse entered in a race, administer by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator, or nebulizer any substance whatsoever. Where such administration occurs both the person and the trainer commit a breach of this sub-rule unless such device was used after the horse had raced or under the direction or supervision of a club veterinary surgeon, Racecourse Inspector or Stipendiary Steward.
For the purposes of this sub-rule the day of racing is deemed to commence 12 hours prior to the first race and conclude half an hour after the last race.”
6.3 In a Hearing before the Judicial Committee, it is necessary that the Informant establish the following matters to the standard of balance of probabilities, that is, that it is more probable than not:
(a) That the horse was entered in a race;
(b) That the horse had administered to it by a nasal gastric tube, or gastric tube, any substance;
(c) That the tubing occurred 12 hours prior to the first race and half an hour after the last race;
(d) That the person charged was either:
(i) the trainer;
(ii) the person administering the substance by tubing; or
(iii) a party to a breach, by aiding, abetting inciting, counselling or procuring (Rule 1002(1)).
6.4 It is not necessary to prove that the person knew what the substance being administered was, as it is an offence to administer any substance.
6.5 The effect of the Rule being one of strict liability is that it is not necessary to prove:
(a) An intention to breach the Rule;
(b) That the person charged knew that the horse was entered in a race, or
(c) The person charged knew it was being administered 12 hours prior to the first race.
6.6 Where the breach is one of strict liability, the person charged has a defence if they prove they took all reasonable steps. This is a limited defence and the onus is upon the person charged to prove that he or she took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of a breach of the Rules. The test is not whether they took some reasonable steps, but whether they took all reasonable steps that were open. The question of reasonableness is determined objectively, so that the person charged’s perception does not necessarily govern this situation: Garrow & Turkington – Criminal Law in New Zealand – APPV.10.
6.7 The defence case is that the Defendant did not tube the horse and not that he took all reasonable steps to avoid a breach of the Rule and accordingly the defence of all reasonable steps does not apply. The effect of Rule 1008 is in the context of the current proceeding is that to prove a breach of the Rule it is not necessary for the Informant to prove the Defendant intended to commit a breach of the Rule.
6.8 Although to establish a breach of the Rule it is not necessary for the Informant to prove the Defendant knew the horse was entered in a race it is submitted that the Defendant was aware the horse was to race having regard to the following evidence:
(a) Ms Edwards was preparing the horse for the races when the Defendant arrived at the stables;
In the end result we are satisfied on the evidence put before us that HRNZ has proved to the required standard (and not merely on the balance of probabilities) that Mr Peary did knowingly participate with Ms Edwards in breaching Rule 1004(6). The charge is accordingly proven.
We can also say that if we had rejected the evidence of Ms Edwards that Mr Peary knowingly participated with her in administering sodium bicarbonate to Machabella, we would still have found the charge against him proven because the offence is one of strict liability and Mr Peary failed (as earlier described) to take all reasonable steps to ensure he did not breach the Rule.
HRNZ will have seven days from the date of this Decision to file any submissions it wishes to make as to penalty, costs and related matters arising from the Finding recorded herein. Those submissions are to be filed with the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority who will in turn then forward them to Mr Ryan on behalf of his Client Mr Peary. Mr Ryan is to have seven days from service of HRNZ’s submissions on him to file any submissions he wishes to make in reply.
Dated this day of March 2011.
BJ Scott BJ Rowe
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 24/02/2011
Publish Date: 24/02/2011
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 06ad1f678cd1656cc8986dbbf1435324
informantnumber: 68690
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 24/02/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - HRNZ v JT Peary - 25 November 2010 - Decision dated March 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Rules:
1001(1)(q) (Penalty Rules) 1001(2), 1001(3),
1004(6) (Penalty Rules), 1004(7) & 1004(8)
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT CAMBRIDGE
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN Mr THOMAS RODNEY CARMICHAEL (on behalf of HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND)
Informant
AND Mr John Terrick Peary
Public Trainer
Defendant
Information No’s: 68690 and 68914
Venue: Cambridge Raceway, Cambridge
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman), BJ Rowe (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr TR Carmichael for the Informant,
Mr JT Peary in person,
Mr AJ Ryan as Counsel for Mr Peary
Ms LS Edwards (Witness for the Informant)
Mr PJ Alpe (Witness for the Informant)
Mr D Buckley (Witness for the Defendant)
Mr T Shaw (Witness for the Defendant)
Plea: (i) Charge under Rule 1001(1)(q) – withdrawn
(ii) Charge under Rule 1004(6) – not admitted
Date of Hearing: 25 November 2010
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1.1 First Mr Carmichael sought leave to withdraw the Information under number 68690 and this was withdrawn by consent.
1.2 Pursuant to Information 68914 Mr Peary was charged that on the 2 July at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville he committed a breach of Rule 1004(6) in that during a day of racing he did administer by nasal gastric tube a substance containing sodium bicarbonate to the horse Machabella, which was to start in race five at a Race Meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park and is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1004(7) and 1004(8).
1.3 Mr Carmichael sought leave to amend the penalty provisions in that charge by substituting Rule 1003(1) for 1004(7).
Mr Ryan consented to the amendment and advised this Committee that his Client did not admit the charge.
1.4 Mr Peary acknowledged that he had been served with not only the charges but had been provided copies of the relevant Rules.
1.5 Mr Carmichael presented written authority from the General Manager of HRNZ to proceed with the charges against Mr Peary.
Evidence for Informant
2.1 Mr Carmichael in his opening statement said that the charge that Mr Peary now faces relates to the race day tubing of a horse which was to race at Alexandra Park on the 2 July 2010. He said that it was to be alleged that Mr Peary tubed the horse prior to it leaving to go to race at Alexandra Park and that the horse was tested at Auckland and subsequently returned an elevated TCO2 level for which the Trainer Ms Leanne Edwards had been dealt with.
Mr Carmichael advised the Committee that he would be calling Ms Edwards as a Witness as well as Mr Paul Alpe, the TAB Auditor who would give evidence in relation to betting on a TAB telephone account and Mr Carmichael would also give evidence following his interview with Mr Peary and he would be producing the documentary evidence to this Committee.
2.2 Mr Carmichael then called Ms Leanne Shirley Edwards and her evidence was as follows:
I live at 12C Davie Street, Morrinsville.
On the 2 July 2010 I held a Public Trainer’s Licence under the Rules of Harness Racing, at that time I had been licenced since 1985. I was the trainer of the standardbred horse Machabella. At that time I was training from the Morrinsville Trotting Club complex at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville.
On 2 July 2010 Machabella started in Race 5 at a race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park. All horses in race five were pre-race blood tested for TCO2 levels. The sample taken from Machabella at Alexandra Park subsequently recorded an official TCO2 level of 38.0 mmol/L.
As a consequence of that elevated TCO2 level I was charged under the Rules of Harness Racing with a breach of Rule 1004(6). I appeared before a Judicial Committee at Cambridge on 30 September 2010 when I admitted the breach of the Rule. I was disqualified for a period of eight months and ordered to pay $250 costs to the Judicial Control Authority.
Prior to 30 September 2010 I shared a barn at Scott Reserve with another Trainer, Mr John Peary, the Defendant in these proceedings.
At about 4.20pm on 2 July 2010 I was at the barn, brushing down Machabella prior to travelling to Alexandra Park. John Peary had previously asked me if I wanted Machabella tubed. I agreed. I bought a packet of baking soda from my local dairy. I took this to the barn with me on 2 July 2010.
John Peary mixed the stuff up in a small white bucket. Apart from the baking soda, I don’t know what else went into the mixture. He had a length of clear plastic tube, the small bucket and a green plastic funnel. I held Machabella while John Peary administered the liquid via the plastic tube through the nostril of the horse. This practice is referred to as “milkshaking” a horse and I knew that it was a breach of the Rules.
I did not make up the mixture that was administered to the horse. John Peary did this. I did not clean up the tubing gear and I have not seen it since 2 July 2010. I have handed Mr Carmichael a small white bucket which is similar to the small bucket in which Mr Peary prepared the Mixture.
When the horse was blood tested at Alexandra Park I knew that I would be in trouble. I rang John Peary from the track and advised him that the horse had been blood tested. He just said not to worry about it – we will just wait and see what happens – we have got to stick together on this.
I am certain that John Peary knew that the horse was Machabella and that it was to race at Alexandra Park that night. My trailer float was hooked up to my vehicle and my race cart was alongside the horse float. As soon as the horse was tubed I loaded it onto the float and left a short time later to travel to Alexandra Park.
John Peary had also asked me what race the horse was in; what it had drawn; and what time it was to race.
I have never asked John Peary to tube any of my horses before 2 July 2010, even for routine saline drenches.
2.3 Mr Carmichael produced Ms Edwards notes of a second interview he had with Ms Edwards following his initial interview with Mr Peary. In that Ms Edwards confirmed that she had rung Mr Peary from the track and told him that the horse had been blood tested and his answer was “don’t worry about it, don’t worry about it”. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she did not ring Mr Peary on the Friday afternoon to come and tube the horse and she said that she was brushing Machabella and getting it ready for the races when he arrived at the stables. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had not touched the tubing gear after the horse was tubed and she has not seen it since.
Ms Edwards also said that Mr Peary knew what the horse was and knew that it was going to the races because not only had the horse been groomed but her float was hooked up to her car and the race cart and gear were next to the float and that Mr Peary was there when Ms Edwards loaded the horse on to the float.
2.4 Under cross examination from Mr Ryan, Ms Edwards spoke about the colour of her horses and she also confirmed that she has never been taught how to drench a horse and doesn’t know how to do it. Ms Edwards also said that she had not used Mr Peary to drench horses for her but if a horse is sick then she gets a vet to it. Ms Edwards also said that a local Trainer Mr S had never touched her horses. Ms Edwards also said that when she called Mr Peary from the race track he was at home because she spoke to him on the landline. An earlier call that she had made the day before to Mr Peary was on his cellphone and she did not know where he was. Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had rang Mr Peary and asked him to tube Machabella and had told Mr Peary that he was racing at Auckland on the Friday night.
Ms Edwards also said that she did not make up the mixture and that Mr Peary had done that. She acknowledged that she had bought the bicarbonate of soda and she said again that Mr Peary had mixed the ingredients together. Ms Edwards also said that another local Trainer, Mr B has never touched or tubed her horses.
Ms Edwards answered questions concerning the stable set up and the smoko room and said that some of the tubing gear was kept in the fridge.
Ms Edwards also confirmed that she had telephoned Mr Peary after the horse was pre-race tested and was told “we will just wait and see what happens, we have got to stick together on this.” Ms Edwards said that her partner had nothing to do with the tubing and in answer to a further question she said that she had put $10.00 each way on her horse. Ms Edwards confirmed that she had a horse racing at Cambridge the night before but she also said that she does not normally give her horses a saline drench after the race. If however anything is needed then she buys a tube of electrolytes from a local grain company but it is in a plastic tube with a plunger.
2.5 In re-examination by Mr Carmichael, Ms Edwards confirmed that Mr Peary had previously asked her if she had wanted Machabella tubed and she agreed to it. Ms Edwards confirmed that she rang Mr Peary on the morning of the races to remind him to tube the horse for her but that she had first spoken to him late the previous afternoon about it.
In answer to questions from the Committee Ms Edwards confirmed that she had asked Mr Peary to tube Machabella and she was aware of the timing required for tubing a horse. Ms Edwards also said that she had only one horse racing that night and with Mr Peary and herself sharing a barn they see each other every day.
Ms Edwards also said that she had told Mr Peary prior to tubing the horse what race it was in, what it had drawn and what time it was to race. Ms Edwards then advised the Committee that she had told Mr Peary the night before what time the race was but when he was tubing the horse she told him the barrier position it had drawn.
Mr Ryan queried Ms Edward’s statements concerning the phone call to Mr Peary the previous night.
2.6 Mr Carmichael then called Paul James Alpe to give evidence and he stated:
I am the Investigations and Security Manager, employed by the New Zealand Racing Board at Petone.
On 9 July 2010, at the request of Rod Carmichael (Racecourse Inspector), I checked betting on horse (2) Machabella in race 5 at the race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park on 2 July 2010. In particular I checked betting accounts in the name of the Defendant John Terrick Peary, his wife, Leanne Shirley Edwards and her partner.
Mr Alpe confirmed betting activity in an account in the name of Mr Peary’s wife and gave details of various betting transactions. Mr Alpe also provided audio evidence to the Committee in relation to bets on the night that Machabella raced.
2.7 Mr Carmichael then gave evidence confirming his position as a Racecourse Inspector, employed then by Harness Racing New Zealand.
He said that on 2 July 2010 he was officially present at a race meeting conducted by the Thames Harness Racing Club at Alexandra Park and during the course of the meeting he was responsible for the pre-race blood testing of a number of horses. Included were all horses in race 5. The horse Machabella was one of the horses sampled in race 5. Subsequent to the meeting all of the samples were packaged in accordance with the Regulations and forwarded by courier to the Racing Laboratory at Avondale. All samples were received at the Racing Laboratory at midday on 6 July 2010 with all seals intact.
On 7 July 2010 he received advice from the Laboratory of an elevated TCO2 level for the horse Machabella.
As a result, he commenced an investigation, as a TCO2 level is excess of 36.2 mmol/L is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules of Harness Racing.
Mr Carmichael then said that early on the afternoon of 8 July 2010 he interviewed Leanne Edwards at her home. Mr Carmichael produced her statement as an exhibit. He said that subsequently, at about 1645 he interviewed Mr Peary at the barn he shared with Leanne Edwards at Scott Reserve, Morrinsville and he obtained a written statement from Mr Peary. He produced that statement to the Committee and in that statement Mr Peary acknowledged that he had tubed a horse for Ms Edwards on 2 July 2010 and he had used his tubing gear. He said that the mixture was made up when he arrived at the barn and he said he didn’t have a clue what horse was to be tubed nor what was in the mix.
He also said that he did know that Ms Edwards had a horse racing that night but that he did not know that it was the horse that he had tubed. In his statement Mr Peary said that he didn’t ask what the mix was and he also did not bet on Ms Edward’s horse because he does not bet much.
Mr Carmichael then confirmed that at 1235 on 24 August 2010 he served the Informations on Mr Peary at his home address. He said that after he had served the papers Mr Peary said “You have got this wrong I didn’t do anything. You shouldn’t be chasing me I didn’t know what the horse was”.
Mr Carmichael then asked Mr Peary about various bets placed on his wife’s telephone account. He said that he had put bets on for his wife because she was at work.
Mr Peary had also told Mr Carmichael that Ms Edwards did ring him from the track at Auckland but he did not speak to her and he let the phone ring.
Evidence for the Defendant
3.1 Mr Peary was then called to give evidence as follows:
(i) I am a trainer licensed under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand and I operate from Stables at Morrinsville. Those stable adjoin the stables operated by Leanne Edwards.
(ii) I am also employed by the Department of Corrections, supervising community service and I work on Wednesdays to Saturdays from 7.00am until 4.00pm.
(iii) On the 2 of July I finished work, but before I did so I received a telephone call from Leanne asking me to tube her horse once I had finished. My normal practice is to go from work to home and to the stables to feed up.
(iv) I recall making a statement to Mr Carmichael on the 8 of July and what is contained in that statement is correct but I wish to enlarge on it at this stage.
(v) During the course of the telephone conversation I told Leanne that she needed to have everything ready for me given that I had to feed my two horses at the stables and also some cattle that I was running. At that time of the year it is dark shortly after 5.00pm so I didn’t have much time.
(vi) When I arrived at the stables the horse was tied up. Leanne told me that everything was ready. She said the “Jug had been boiled” and she wanted me to pour the hot water into the mix which was in the bucket.
(vii) I duly tubed the horse and went to the feed room and made up my feeds. I went to feed my two horses in the paddock and I saw her drive off in the float. It didn’t register that the horse I had tubed was in the float and I was unaware that she had a horse racing at Auckland that night. I knew that she had raced at Cambridge on the previous night and I thought that what had occurred was that she had asked me to give that horse a drench.
(viii) I have drenched her horses on at least 20 occasions. I have not seen anyone else do so, although I did ask Mr S to do one of her horses once for me.
(ix) At the time I was under a great deal of stress but not as much as my wife whose daughter had been killed in a car crash at the end of April. She had naturally been very upset particularly because of the media attention.
(x) The tube used was mine which is in a fridge in the smoko room. It was not there the next day and I understand that her partner took it and it was some four to six weeks before it was returned.
(xi) I am aware that Leanne did ring me from the track at Auckland but I did not answer my mobile because I did not have it with me when she rang. The call went to missed calls. She did however, make contact with me on my landline later on and told me that she had been blood tested and the horse that I had tubed for her that afternoon was the horse racing. She said she had put bi-crab in the mix and did I think she would get a high reading. I replied that I did not know and really I did not want to know about it as I had enough problems of my own.
(xii) When I returned to the stable the next day I looked for my tubing gear which had gone. I just presumed that Leanne would clean it and put it away as she normally did.
(xiii) Mr Carmichael interviewed me. He asked me where the tubing gear was and I said I had not seen it since I had tubed the horse. The tubing gear did not turn up back at the stable for some four weeks or so. From what I understand it was cleaned up and taken by Leanne’s partner Rex Peni who returned it.
(xiv) Leanne has stated that I have never tubed her horses before the 2 of July. This is simply untrue. Since my step-daughter’s death I had been taking my step-son with me after work to attend to the two horses I had at the stables and on occasions I had been asked by Leanne to drench a horse or horses of hers and my step-son Daniel was aware of this.
(xv) Leanne is an extremely hot-headed person. There was an incident at the stables some two weeks ago, after Leanne had been disqualified, it was a Sunday and she made a statement to me “I don’t care what it takes, I’ll take you down.”
(xvi) The set up at Morrinsville is that there are paddocks which are allocated to the various trainers. Leanne has a mare and foal in a paddock and I understand she has permission to go to the paddock to look after the mare and foal. She has been at the stables, for example on Melbourne Cup day holding her horses. On that occasion Leanne took a pair of shoes over to a neighbouring training facility where her farrier was and then held the horse which was hers while it was being shod. I am not aware as to just who is training her horses at the present time.
(xvii) It can be seen from the TAB records that the account which is in my wife’s name is used very infrequently and only for small amounts. Basically most of the bets that I have are for local horses and by that I mean horses trained by persons at the track at Morrinsville. For example there are bets on the 13 of May; the 11 of June; and the 1 of July on horses trained by Leanne in addition to the bets on the 2 of July. I place these bets just to have an interest but certainly my account shows I am hardly, what is known as, a big punter. When I got home I looked through the racebook and saw that Leanne had a horse racing. I said in my statement that I did not have a bet. By that I meant it was for my wife who gets me to put on bets for her while she is at work at the Hamilton City Council between 4pm and 11pm. She handles emergency calls and although she rings me from time to time she is not permitted to use the Council phone for TAB calls. When work is quiet she has TV and watches Trackside.
(xviii) I say again that I did not know that the horse that I was drenching for Leanne was racing at Alexander Park that night. I did not know also that the drench which Leanne had mixed was bi-carbonate of soda or a milkshake and if I had known that that was the case then I would not have drenched the horse. All her race horses are bays and I have never attempted to distinguish one from the other.
3.2 Mr S then presented his evidence as follows:
(i) I am a trainer licensed under the Rules of New Zealand Harness Racing and I train at Morrinsville.
(ii) I know both Mr Peary and Ms Edwards who have trained at Morrinsville while I have been there.
(iii) I am aware that Ms Edwards is unable to drench a horse and I have seen John Peary drench her horses for her on some occasions. I have also been asked to drench horses by Ms Edwards.
(iv) Mr S in cross examination confirmed that Mr Peary and he were friends. He also said that he was friends with Ms Edwards.
(v) In answer to questions from the Committee Mr S said that the distance from his barn to the Edwards/Peary barn is 300-400 metres away on an angle. He said that he could see Mr Peary drenching Ms Edward’s horses from that distance and he said that he was able to identify the horses as Ms Edwards. Mr S said that he saw Mr Peary drenching the horses in a Lean To at the side of the barn where they tie their horses up.
Mr S said that drenching horses was a routine thing and that 95% of Trainers would drench their own horses and give them a saline drench after a hard run to stop them from getting dehydrated. Mr S said that after a hard workout he might drench the horse 20-30 minutes later but in answer to a further question he said that if a horse had raced on a Thursday night and had had a hard run then he would probably drench it on the following Monday.
(vi) In re-examination Mr S said that there was no hard and fast rule about when to drench a horse but did say that there was a right way and a wrong way and it had to be done correctly.
3.3 Mr B then presented his evidence as follows:
(i) I am a step-son of John Peary.
(ii) I am familiar with the training situation at Morrinsville having been there on a number of occasions with John. I have seen John drench horses for Ms Edwards.
(iii) Mr B said that he had seen John Peary drench horses for Ms Edwards on about five occasions although he could not be exact as to when those occasions were.
(iv) In answer to a question from the Committee Mr B said that he knew which were Ms Edwards horses and which were Mr Peary’s horses.
In answer to a further question he said that the drenching took place inside the barn in one of the stalls. When queried again about the location of the drenching as a result of previous evidence Mr B confirmed that the drenching took place inside the barn.
Summary by Mr Carmichael
4.1 Mr Carmichael said that it was an issue of credibility between Ms Edwards and Mr Peary. He invited the Committee to disregard the conflicting evidence of Mr Peary’s two witnesses. He said that there was no denying that the tubing of the horse Machabella took place on race day and he said that in his submission it was clear that Mr Peary must have or ought to have known with his experience and certainly on the basis of the evidence of Ms Edwards, that he knew that the horse that was being tubed was about to depart for the races at Auckland.
Mr Carmichael also said that he was not asking the Tribunal to believe that Mr Peary instigated the matter but rather that Mr Peary and Ms Edwards agreed to do it together.
Mr Carmichael also referred to the bets on Mrs Peary’s account and said that Mr Peary in his interview had denied placing the bets and it was only when he was confronted with the audio evidence that he said that he had placed the bets on behalf of his wife. Mr Carmichael submitted that if Mr Peary did not lie in his interview then he certainly was unhelpful in relation to whose bets they were.
Submissions by Mr Ryan
5.1 In relation to the bets on Machabella Mr Ryan noted that the bets were placed a short time after Ms Edwards had telephoned Mr Peary. Mr Ryan suggested that an interpretation of the evidence could be that Mr Peary did not know what was in the drench and didn’t know that the horse was starting and only put the bet on after the phone call from the racetrack from Ms Edwards.
Mr Ryan also referred to the size of the bets and the fact that Mr Peary was a small time bettor and suggested that this was a person who was not in co-hoots with the Trainer.
Mr Ryan said that this was clearly a case where there was a conflict of evidence and he suggested that there must be doubt in the Committee’s minds as to guilt or innocence and any doubt must be given to Mr Peary and the charge dismissed.
At the conclusion of the Hearing the Committee advised the parties that it reserved its decision. The Committee wished to assess the application of Rule 1008 to the facts as presented to it.
Rule 1008 provides:
“In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules:
(a) it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and
(b) any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability.
The Committee then invited submissions from both Mr Carmichael and Mr Ryan as to the application of Rule 1008 to this case and a timetable for those submissions was set. Submissions were subsequently received from both Messrs Carmichael and Ryan.
Submissions for the Informant
6.1 Mr Carmichael said that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 1008, it remains the primary position of the Informant that the Defendant knew that the horse he tubed at Morrinsville on 2 July 2010 was Machabella and that it was to race at Alexandra Park that night and well within the 12 hours stipulated in Rule 1004(6). In support of that Mr Carmichael referred to main points in the evidence before the Committee.
A Breach of the Rule
6.2 Rule 1004(6) provides:
“No person shall during any day of racing, in respect of a horse entered in a race, administer by injection, nasal gastric tube, gastric tube, ventilator, or nebulizer any substance whatsoever. Where such administration occurs both the person and the trainer commit a breach of this sub-rule unless such device was used after the horse had raced or under the direction or supervision of a club veterinary surgeon, Racecourse Inspector or Stipendiary Steward.
For the purposes of this sub-rule the day of racing is deemed to commence 12 hours prior to the first race and conclude half an hour after the last race.”
6.3 In a Hearing before the Judicial Committee, it is necessary that the Informant establish the following matters to the standard of balance of probabilities, that is, that it is more probable than not:
(a) That the horse was entered in a race;
(b) That the horse had administered to it by a nasal gastric tube, or gastric tube, any substance;
(c) That the tubing occurred 12 hours prior to the first race and half an hour after the last race;
(d) That the person charged was either:
(i) the trainer;
(ii) the person administering the substance by tubing; or
(iii) a party to a breach, by aiding, abetting inciting, counselling or procuring (Rule 1002(1)).
6.4 It is not necessary to prove that the person knew what the substance being administered was, as it is an offence to administer any substance.
6.5 The effect of the Rule being one of strict liability is that it is not necessary to prove:
(a) An intention to breach the Rule;
(b) That the person charged knew that the horse was entered in a race, or
(c) The person charged knew it was being administered 12 hours prior to the first race.
6.6 Where the breach is one of strict liability, the person charged has a defence if they prove they took all reasonable steps. This is a limited defence and the onus is upon the person charged to prove that he or she took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of a breach of the Rules. The test is not whether they took some reasonable steps, but whether they took all reasonable steps that were open. The question of reasonableness is determined objectively, so that the person charged’s perception does not necessarily govern this situation: Garrow & Turkington – Criminal Law in New Zealand – APPV.10.
6.7 The defence case is that the Defendant did not tube the horse and not that he took all reasonable steps to avoid a breach of the Rule and accordingly the defence of all reasonable steps does not apply. The effect of Rule 1008 is in the context of the current proceeding is that to prove a breach of the Rule it is not necessary for the Informant to prove the Defendant intended to commit a breach of the Rule.
6.8 Although to establish a breach of the Rule it is not necessary for the Informant to prove the Defendant knew the horse was entered in a race it is submitted that the Defendant was aware the horse was to race having regard to the following evidence:
(a) Ms Edwards was preparing the horse for the races when the Defendant arrived at the stables;
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
In the end result we are satisfied on the evidence put before us that HRNZ has proved to the required standard (and not merely on the balance of probabilities) that Mr Peary did knowingly participate with Ms Edwards in breaching Rule 1004(6). The charge is accordingly proven.
We can also say that if we had rejected the evidence of Ms Edwards that Mr Peary knowingly participated with her in administering sodium bicarbonate to Machabella, we would still have found the charge against him proven because the offence is one of strict liability and Mr Peary failed (as earlier described) to take all reasonable steps to ensure he did not breach the Rule.
HRNZ will have seven days from the date of this Decision to file any submissions it wishes to make as to penalty, costs and related matters arising from the Finding recorded herein. Those submissions are to be filed with the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority who will in turn then forward them to Mr Ryan on behalf of his Client Mr Peary. Mr Ryan is to have seven days from service of HRNZ’s submissions on him to file any submissions he wishes to make in reply.
Dated this day of March 2011.
BJ Scott BJ Rowe
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 1001(1)(q)Penalty Rules) 1001(2), 1001(3), 1004(6) Penalty Rules) 1004(7)& 1004(8)
Informant: TR Carmichael
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: JT Peary - Public Trainer
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: