Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v M Hamilton 26 August 2011 – Decision 26 August 2011
ID: JCA10824
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
AND
IN THE MATTER of Information No. 69201
BETWEEN Robin Scott, Racing Investigator
Informant
AND Murray Hamilton of Omakau, Licensed Trainer
Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: Friday, 26 August 2011
VENUE: Judicial Room, Oamaru Racing Club, Oamaru
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr G Hall (Chairman) - Mr D Steel (Member)
PRESENT: Mr R Scott (Informant) - Mr M Hamilton (Defendant)
DATE OF DECISION: 26 August 2011
The charge
[1] Information number 69201 alleges as follows:
THAT on 10 August 2011, being a licensed trainer and the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of the registered racehorse MARGRETTA, a 7 year old bay mare by the sire Pentire from the dam Ballyreel AND THAT MARGRETTA was an accepter for race 10 the Speight’s Rating 70 2000m race at the totalisator meeting being conducted by the Canterbury Jockey Club at Riccarton, racecourse on that day, AND THAT you were responsible for having registered racehorse IMAT THEBAR, a 6 year old bay gelding by the sire Al Akbar from the dam Ima Mystery presented this horse at Riccarton Racecourse for the purpose of competing in such event in place of the mare MARGRETTA, AND THAT you thereby have committed a breach of Rule 404(2) and 802(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing AND THAT you are liable for the penalty/penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.
The rules
[2] The relevant rules provide as follows:
404(2) A person shall not enter, accept, start or intend to start a horse in a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes) under a name other than its registered name or its recorded breeding details in the case of an unnamed horse that is entered for or starts in a trial.
802(1) A person commits a breach of these Rules who:
(a) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;
803(1) A person who, or body or other entity (not being a Club) 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.
The facts
[3] Mr Scott, Racing Investigator, produced written authority from Mr M Godber, Operations Manager, RIU, to lodge an information against the defendant.
[4] Mr Scott stated that horse number 17 in race 10 at the Canterbury Jockey Club’s meeting at Riccarton on 10 August last was MARGRETTA, a 7 year-old bay mare. The trainer of the horse was the defendant.
[5] Prior to the race the horse presented as MARGRETTA was inspected by the brands officials at the entrance to the plating inspection area. This horse did not match the identification records of MARGRETTA. The horse was in fact the gelding IMAT THEBAR, which had raced earlier in the day in race 6. This horse, which is also trained by the defendant, is also a bay and it is accepted that from front on the horses are similar in looks.
[6] Inquiries by the RIU staff disclosed that Mr McIlraith, a local licensed stable-hand, had prepared the horse with the assistance of Ms Seyb, who works for the defendant. He said IMAT THEBAR had been prepared in the gear that was listed for MARGRETTA and that IMAT THEBAR was led to the plate inspection by Mr Wright, who was also assisting the defendant.
[7] Mr Scott explained that once the error was detected IMAT THEBAR had been returned to the stalls and MARGRETTA was prepared for racing. He said no delay had been occasioned and that MARGRETTA had been presented to race and had run third in the event.
[8] Mr Hamilton stated that Mr Wright had recognised that a mistake had been made with the two horses and was about to return the horse to the tie-ups when the official inspection disclosed the error. He emphasised that he had trained the winner of the Grand National Hurdles earlier in the day and was celebrating this success, and he had not personally been involved in saddling the horse. He had left this task to his staff. He further said that Mr Wright, who took an especial interest in MARGRETTA, had been delayed and had not assisted in preparing the horse. The defendant was unaware of this at the time.
Submissions
[9] Mr Scott submitted that it was evident from the facts that the defendant had been negligent in not being present at the time MARGRETTA was being prepared to race. He had relied on his stable-hand, who was being assisted by a local person. Mr Scott emphasised that had the error not been detected it had the potential to impact upon the integrity of racing. A deterrent penalty was required, he said, to alert others to the need to properly identify horses in their care.
[10] Mr Scott submitted that the breach be dealt with by way of a fine in the range of $500 to $750. He acknowledged that the defendant had been totally co-operative throughout the investigation into the matter.
[11] Mr Hamilton asked that the fine be kept to a minimum and pointed out that a local trainer a few months ago had been fined only $150 for mixing up the numbers when he had two horses in a race. He understood this mistake had not been detected at the plating inspection and only came to notice when the trainer realised, prior to the race, that the horses were wearing the wrong saddlecloths.
Penalty:
[12] The responsibility rests with the trainer. Mr Hamilton has accepted this by making a prompt admission of the breach and he has not attempted to place blame on members of his staff. He has said the success earlier in the day diverted his attention from readying MARGRETTA for the later race and he had expected Mr Wright, who knew the horse well, to have overseen the saddling and to have led the horse to the birdcage. As he explained, Mr Wright had been delayed and had not assisted in preparing the horse.
[13] Mitigating factors are the defendant’s ready admission of the breach and his co-operation with the RIU officials. He is fortunate that the breach was detected early and that the correct horse was able to race. There was thus no impact upon the Club or the betting public. There is no allegation that the defendant has previously breached the rules in similar circumstances.
[14] We agree that a fine is appropriate. We do not find the $150 fine where the saddlecloth numbers were confused to be a helpful precedent. That penalty appears to be very light and we are unaware of the mitigating factors. The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a fine of $800 for a breach of r 404(2) and we note that in 2007, where a similar error was detected at the plating inspection, a fine of $400 was imposed.
[15] We impose a fine of $500 and emphasise to the defendant that success in a major race should not deflect his attention from his professional obligations.
[16] The RIU does not seek costs and, as the matter was heard on raceday, there is no award in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 05/09/2011
Publish Date: 05/09/2011
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: 035c8654dcdf926be8f2c93c139e3d9a
informantnumber: 69201
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 05/09/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v M Hamilton 26 August 2011 - Decision 26 August 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
AND
IN THE MATTER of Information No. 69201
BETWEEN Robin Scott, Racing Investigator
Informant
AND Murray Hamilton of Omakau, Licensed Trainer
Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: Friday, 26 August 2011
VENUE: Judicial Room, Oamaru Racing Club, Oamaru
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr G Hall (Chairman) - Mr D Steel (Member)
PRESENT: Mr R Scott (Informant) - Mr M Hamilton (Defendant)
DATE OF DECISION: 26 August 2011
The charge
[1] Information number 69201 alleges as follows:
THAT on 10 August 2011, being a licensed trainer and the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of the registered racehorse MARGRETTA, a 7 year old bay mare by the sire Pentire from the dam Ballyreel AND THAT MARGRETTA was an accepter for race 10 the Speight’s Rating 70 2000m race at the totalisator meeting being conducted by the Canterbury Jockey Club at Riccarton, racecourse on that day, AND THAT you were responsible for having registered racehorse IMAT THEBAR, a 6 year old bay gelding by the sire Al Akbar from the dam Ima Mystery presented this horse at Riccarton Racecourse for the purpose of competing in such event in place of the mare MARGRETTA, AND THAT you thereby have committed a breach of Rule 404(2) and 802(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing AND THAT you are liable for the penalty/penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 803(1) of the said Rules.
The rules
[2] The relevant rules provide as follows:
404(2) A person shall not enter, accept, start or intend to start a horse in a Race or trial (including a jump-out or test for certification purposes) under a name other than its registered name or its recorded breeding details in the case of an unnamed horse that is entered for or starts in a trial.
802(1) A person commits a breach of these Rules who:
(a) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;
803(1) A person who, or body or other entity (not being a Club) 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.
The facts
[3] Mr Scott, Racing Investigator, produced written authority from Mr M Godber, Operations Manager, RIU, to lodge an information against the defendant.
[4] Mr Scott stated that horse number 17 in race 10 at the Canterbury Jockey Club’s meeting at Riccarton on 10 August last was MARGRETTA, a 7 year-old bay mare. The trainer of the horse was the defendant.
[5] Prior to the race the horse presented as MARGRETTA was inspected by the brands officials at the entrance to the plating inspection area. This horse did not match the identification records of MARGRETTA. The horse was in fact the gelding IMAT THEBAR, which had raced earlier in the day in race 6. This horse, which is also trained by the defendant, is also a bay and it is accepted that from front on the horses are similar in looks.
[6] Inquiries by the RIU staff disclosed that Mr McIlraith, a local licensed stable-hand, had prepared the horse with the assistance of Ms Seyb, who works for the defendant. He said IMAT THEBAR had been prepared in the gear that was listed for MARGRETTA and that IMAT THEBAR was led to the plate inspection by Mr Wright, who was also assisting the defendant.
[7] Mr Scott explained that once the error was detected IMAT THEBAR had been returned to the stalls and MARGRETTA was prepared for racing. He said no delay had been occasioned and that MARGRETTA had been presented to race and had run third in the event.
[8] Mr Hamilton stated that Mr Wright had recognised that a mistake had been made with the two horses and was about to return the horse to the tie-ups when the official inspection disclosed the error. He emphasised that he had trained the winner of the Grand National Hurdles earlier in the day and was celebrating this success, and he had not personally been involved in saddling the horse. He had left this task to his staff. He further said that Mr Wright, who took an especial interest in MARGRETTA, had been delayed and had not assisted in preparing the horse. The defendant was unaware of this at the time.
Submissions
[9] Mr Scott submitted that it was evident from the facts that the defendant had been negligent in not being present at the time MARGRETTA was being prepared to race. He had relied on his stable-hand, who was being assisted by a local person. Mr Scott emphasised that had the error not been detected it had the potential to impact upon the integrity of racing. A deterrent penalty was required, he said, to alert others to the need to properly identify horses in their care.
[10] Mr Scott submitted that the breach be dealt with by way of a fine in the range of $500 to $750. He acknowledged that the defendant had been totally co-operative throughout the investigation into the matter.
[11] Mr Hamilton asked that the fine be kept to a minimum and pointed out that a local trainer a few months ago had been fined only $150 for mixing up the numbers when he had two horses in a race. He understood this mistake had not been detected at the plating inspection and only came to notice when the trainer realised, prior to the race, that the horses were wearing the wrong saddlecloths.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[12] The responsibility rests with the trainer. Mr Hamilton has accepted this by making a prompt admission of the breach and he has not attempted to place blame on members of his staff. He has said the success earlier in the day diverted his attention from readying MARGRETTA for the later race and he had expected Mr Wright, who knew the horse well, to have overseen the saddling and to have led the horse to the birdcage. As he explained, Mr Wright had been delayed and had not assisted in preparing the horse.
[13] Mitigating factors are the defendant’s ready admission of the breach and his co-operation with the RIU officials. He is fortunate that the breach was detected early and that the correct horse was able to race. There was thus no impact upon the Club or the betting public. There is no allegation that the defendant has previously breached the rules in similar circumstances.
[14] We agree that a fine is appropriate. We do not find the $150 fine where the saddlecloth numbers were confused to be a helpful precedent. That penalty appears to be very light and we are unaware of the mitigating factors. The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a fine of $800 for a breach of r 404(2) and we note that in 2007, where a similar error was detected at the plating inspection, a fine of $400 was imposed.
[15] We impose a fine of $500 and emphasise to the defendant that success in a major race should not deflect his attention from his professional obligations.
[16] The RIU does not seek costs and, as the matter was heard on raceday, there is no award in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 404(2)and 802(1)
Informant: Robin Scott - Racing Investigator
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Murray Hamilton - 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: