Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P J Rudkin – Reserved Decision on Penalty dated 10 October 2016 – Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

hearingid: 0e2d3a3db3de1d9d1857142b5c626154

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/10/2016

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P J Rudkin - Reserved Decision on Penalty dated 10 October 2016 - Chair, Mr R G McKenzie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc.

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A5030

BETWEEN KYLIE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND PETER JOHN RUDKIN of Christchurch, Licensed Trainer (Class A)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie (Chairman), S C Ching (Committee Member)

Present: Mrs K R Williams, the Informant

Mr P J Rudkin, the Respondent

Mr S P Renault, Registrar

Date of Hearing: 1 October 2016

Date of Decision: 10 October 2016

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY

The Charge

[1] Information No. A5030 alleges that, on the 26th day of August 2016 at the Ashburton RC meeting, the Respondent “being the holder of a Class A Public Trainer’s licence issued under the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules, did misconduct himself by acting in a disorderly manner” in breach of Rule 340 of the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

[2] Mrs Williams produced a letter dated 16 September 2016 signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorising the filing of the information pursuant to Rule 903 (2) (d).

[3] The information and details of the alleged breach were served on Mr Rudkin on 19 September 2016. Mr Rudkin completed and signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he admitted the breach.

The Rule

[4] Rule 340 of the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing provides as follows:

340 A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

The Plea

[5] The above charge and Rule were read to Mr Rudkin and he indicated that he admitted the charge. The charge was found proved accordingly.

The Facts

[6] Mrs Williams presented to the hearing the following Summary of Facts.

The Respondent, Peter John Rudkin, is a licenced trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. Mr Rudkin currently has a Class A Trainer’s licence and has been licensed as a trainer since 1997.

On 26 August 2016 at the Ashburton RC meeting Mr Murray Hamilton brought a horse that was not racing to the races for Mr Rudkin to take home. Mr Rudkin moved the horse from the outside tie ups to an allocated raceday box when Mr Hamilton was leaving so that it was not left on its own.

Trainer, Danny Crozier, moved the said horse from the box when he arrived on course at about Race 5 to a stall so that he could use the box for his racehorse. He left his red and white lead with the horse. Mr Crozier was allocated box 125. Mr Rudkin advises that he had put the horse in Box 124.

Peter Rudkin became aware the horse had been moved but did not advise or make a complaint to the Stipendiary Stewards and/or Racing Investigator at the meeting. Peter Rudkin was aware that whomever moved the horse would want their lead back so waited to find out who the "culprit" was when they later returned.

After the last race, Mr Crozier approached Mr Rudkin as he led the horse out to the float park. He then asked for his lead back. Mr Rudkin refused to give the lead back saying that he would “take it to the room”, (meaning the Stipendiary Stewards’ Room).

The conversation became heated and resulted in a physical altercation occurring on Peter Rudkin's float. Several punches were exchanged between the two with Danny Crozier receiving a chipped tooth. A Majestic Float driver intervened and broke up the fight. A second altercation occurred a short time later when both parties were back in the stabling area to get their other horses. Another fight ensued after Mr Rudkin was in the horse box putting a halter and bit on the horse when Mr Crozier, leaning over the door taking a swing at Mr Rudkin resulting in a black eye. Mr Rudkin came out of the box and punches were again exchanged by both parties.

This incident was broken up by a licensed trainer who witnessed the fight.

Investigators were subsequently advised of the incident and the parties interviewed.

In explanation, Mr Rudkin admitted that he had thrown punches and stated that Mr Crozier had taken a swing at him and he naturally swung back and connected.

Mr Rudkin has not previously been charged with a breach of Rule 340.

Submissions of the Respondent

[7] Mr Rudkin confirmed to the Committee that he agreed with the Summary of Facts presented by Mrs Williams, except that he disputed that he placed the horse in box 125.

[8] Mr Rudkin said that he had placed the horse in the box, box number 124, that had been allocated to the horse trained by K I & L M Rae that had been scratched. He had been told by an employee of Mr & Mrs Rae that the box was vacant.

[9] When he returned to the box approximately one hour later, the horse was missing. He was unable to find it initially, but eventually found it in a tie-up with a lead on. He did not know who had moved it or why it had been moved.

[10] When he was preparing to leave the course, he was leading the horse and another out to his float when he heard Mr Crozier call out to him saying that it was his lead. He responded to Mr Crozier by saying that he could not move another’s horse.

[11] Mr Crozier then followed him all of the way out to his float. He handed the horse with Mr Crozier’s lead on to the float driver and told Mr Crozier that he could get the lead back from the Stipendiary Stewards’ room.

[12] The horse was then loaded on to the float and Mr Crozier “took a swing” at him. Mr Rudkin said that he swung back in self-defence and made contact. This incident was “very minor”, Mr Rudkin said.

[13] Mr Rudkin then returned to get the other horse and walked into its box. He was putting the head collar and lead on the horse when Mr Crozier jumped over the door and struck him on the cheek. That blow hurt him, Mr Rudkin said, and he “fired up” and followed Mr Crozier out the door. 

Penalty Submissions of the Informant

[14] Mrs Williams presented the following Penalty Submissions:

1. The Respondent, Mr Peter Rudkin, is a licensed trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. He has held a trainer’s licence for 19 years and currently holds a Public Trainer’s Licence. He is 55 years of age with a date of birth of 4 July 1961.

2. Mr Rudkin has pleaded guilty to a breach of Rule 340 for misconduct after he acted in a disorderly manner on the 26th day of August 2016 at the Ashburton RC meeting.

3. Mr Rudkin acted in a disorderly manner when being involved in two incidents which resulted in punches being thrown and injuries being sustained by both parties.

4. The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 803 (1)

803 (1) A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:

(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or

(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence: and/or

(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000

5. Sentencing Principles -

The four principals of sentencing can be summarised briefly

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not retributive in the sense that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence but the offender must be met with a punishment.

• In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing like offenses.

• A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the J.C.A for the type of behaviour in question.

• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account.

The first three principles are particularly important in this case.

6. Relevant Precedents –

In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedents:

R.I.U. v M McNab 29 June 2016

Subject: Misconduct - Assaulting another Jockey – Disqualified one month, JCA costs $400

R.I.U v R P Liefting 26 February 2013
Subject: Misconduct - Obscene/foul language & aggressive/threatening behaviour to trainer – fined $750, JCA costs $750

NZTR v R Black 20 July 2011
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted an owner – trainers and amateur rider’s licences suspended 6 months, fined $500 and JCA costs $100

NZTR v T Thornton June 2008
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted another jockey – disqualified 2 months, NZTR costs $750, JCA costs $250

NZTR v D Bothamley 30 September 2008
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted another jockey – disqualified 1 months, NZTR costs $150, JCA costs $250

I respectively submit that these cases have the most relevance to these proceedings.

7. Aggravating Features –

(i) Mr Rudkin has been licensed as a trainer in New Zealand since 1997.

(ii) Mr Rudkin is well aware that this type of behaviour by a licence holder is unacceptable and he should have known better.

(iii) Mr Rudkin did not need to take the lead when he took the horse to the float, as he knew it was not his.

(iv) There were several occasions that Mr Rudkin could have stopped or attempted to resolve the matter in a peaceful and rational manner.

(v) Mr Rudkin chose to engage in a second incident a short time after the first had been broken up.

(vi) On this occasion his behaviour was witnessed and stopped by industry participants but could well have been witnessed by members of the public as it occurred after the last race.

8. Mitigating Factors –

(i) Mr Rudkin has admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has co-operated fully with the RIU.

(ii) Mr Rudkin has not been charged with a breach of this Rule before.

9. Conclusion

Industry participants need to be sent a clear message that behaviour of this type will not be tolerated and a deterrent by way of a substantial monetary fine should be imposed. We would normally seek a suspension of 1 – 3 months but, in fairness to horse owners in the stable, they should not be penalised for the personal actions of their trainer. The penalty in this instance should only penalise Mr Rudkin. Any future infringement will certainly result in a request of a suspension.

The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $1000.

10. The R.I.U. are not seeking any costs.

Penalty Submissions of the Respondent

[15] Mr Rudkin submitted that he had not provoked Mr Crozier. The dispute was only over a lead, which was a very minor issue, he said. When he realised that Mr Crozier was upset over the lead, Mr Rudkin said, he had returned it to him.

[16] Mr Rudkin agreed, when it was put to him by the Committee, that that the dispute concerned something relatively trivial and should have been able to be settled without a physical confrontation. Mr Rudkin added that all he was trying to do was to leave the course and, if necessary, settle the matter at a later date but Mr Crozier had become angry when he handed the lead back to him.

[17] He accepted that the behaviour of himself and Mr Crozier was unprofessional but, in his case, he alleged that he had been provoked.

Reasons for Penalty

[18] Mr Rudkin has admitted a charge of misconduct arising out of an incident that took place between himself and another Licensed Trainer, Mr Danny Crozier, at Ashburton Racecourse after the last race at Ashburton on 26 August 2016. Mr Rudkin was upset that Mr Crozier had moved a horse in the care of Mr Rudkin which, according to Mr Crozier, had been placed by Mr Rudkin in a box allocated to him but, according to Mr Rudkin, the horse had been placed in a box allocated to another trainer which was not required by that trainer on that day.

[19] Mr Crozier was upset that he had left a lead belonging to himself with the horse and that Mr Rudkin was initially refusing to return the lead to him.

[20] The dispute between Mr Rudkin and Mr Crozier resulted in those parties coming to blows, on the first occasion, on Mr Rudkin’s float and, on a second occasion, back at the boxes. According to the Summary of Facts, Mr Rudkin received a black eye and Mr Crozier a chipped tooth in the exchange of punches.

[21] Statements obtained from two independent persons, but not referred to in the Summary of Facts, confirmed the version of what happened as set out in the Summary of Facts. One such person witnessed the first incident on the float, the other witnessed the incident back at the box. Neither witness was able to state which of Mr Rudkin or Mr Crozier threw the first punch on either occasion.

[22] The statements of Mr Rudkin and Mr Crozier are conflicting in respect of who provoked whom and who threw the first punch in each of the two incidents, firstly, at the horse float and then back at the boxes.

[23] In Mr Crozier’s statement he states:

As I went to retrieve my lead rope on his float he gave me a smack in the mouth. I received a chipped tooth. I retaliated . . . After that I have gone around the corner to get my other horse for the float . . . and he gave me another belt. He missed me and I retaliated.

[24] In Mr Rudkin’s statement he states:

He got wild and started pushing me. I said “here take the f.....g lead and we will deal with this in the room”, and he took a swing at me. I naturally swung back and connected. I hit him.

In relation to the second incident at the boxes, Mr Rudkin has stated:

He hit me across the door and connected on my cheek. With that I fired up and flew out of there and I got into him. I swung probably five or six times.

[25] We are, therefore, unable to resolve this conflict of evidence and, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to apportion blame equally between Mr Rudkin and Mr Crozier.

[26] It is totally unacceptable for two experienced and respected licensed trainers to engage in fighting in attempting to resolve what was, essentially, a trivial matter. Such behaviour is detrimental to the image of thoroughbred racing and it was fortunate that the incidents were not more public, as they took place some time after racing had concluded for the day.

[27] Mr Rudkin has acknowledged that such conduct is unacceptable by admitting the charge of misconduct, which such behaviour clearly is.

[28] Misconduct can take any one of a number of forms. However, in assessing the level of seriousness of misconduct, any physical violence must be considered as being serious misconduct. Any penalty should reflect that.

[29] Whichever party provoked the incident, the provocative conduct was such that the reaction to it by way of physical assault was unreasonable and out of proportion to the nature and degree of the provocative behaviour.

[30] The Committee believes that it is an aggravating factor in this case that, despite a “cooling off period”, Mr Rudkin and Mr Crozier resumed their confrontation, a short time after the initial incident, when further punches were thrown by both.

[31] We were told that Mr Rudkin has held a trainer’s licence since 1997 and has not breached the misconduct Rule since that time. That is a good record which suggests that the present breach is out of character. In addition, Mr Rudkin admitted the breach at the first opportunity and cooperated fully with the Racing Integrity Unit during the course of the investigation. These are mitigating factors for which Mr Rudkin is entitled to credit.

[32] Mrs Williams referred the Committee to a number of other cases of breaches of the same Rule dating back to 2008. All but one of those previous cases involved assaults by jockeys. Four of the five offenders received periods of disqualification between 1 and 6 months and, in one case, a fine in addition. The other previous case involved a trainer who used “obscene/foul language and aggressive /threatening behaviour” to another trainer. That trainer received a fine of $750.

[33] In her penalty submissions, Mrs Williams stated that the RIU would normally seek a suspension of 1-3 months but submitted that “in fairness to horse owners in the stable they should not be penalised for the personal actions of their trainer”. We agree, firstly, that the breach is sufficiently serious to warrant a period of disqualification and, secondly, that such a penalty would have serious consequences to other persons – in particular, owners and staff.

[34] Having regard to those consequences, the Committee intends to deal with the breach by way of a fine. However, for a fine to be imposed in lieu of a period of disqualification, such fine, to be meaningful, must be greater than the fine of $1,000 submitted by Mrs Williams as being appropriate.

[35] In arriving at penalty, the Committee has taken into account the need to satisfy the general principles of sentencing which are well-established - that is to say, to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence.

[36] In all of the circumstances and having regard to the serious nature of the offending and the sentencing principles set out in paragraph [35], the Committee has decided that an appropriate starting point for penalty is a fine of $3,000. From that starting point, Mr Rudkin is entitled to a discount for the mitigating factors referred to in paragraph [31] above. The Committee has decided that a discount of $1,000 is appropriate in that regard.

Penalty

[37] Mr Rudkin is fined the sum of $2,000.

Costs

[38] The Informant did not seek an award of costs and, since the hearing took place on a raceday, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.

R G McKENZIE      S C CHING

Chairman             Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

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: