Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v DE Stapleton – Reserved Decision on Penalty dated 22 October 2015
ID: JCA11122
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6408
BETWEEN KYLIE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND DEANE EDWIN STAPLETON of Rakaia, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman - Mr S C Ching, Committee Member
Present: Mrs K R Williams, Racing Investigator (the Informant)
Mr A C Roberts (Lay Advocate for the Respondent)
Mr N M Ydgren, Registrar
Date of Hearing: 9 October 2015
Date of Decision: 22 October 2015
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
The Charge
[1] Information No.A6408 alleges that, on the 10th day of July 2015, the Respondent being the registered trainer of the greyhound COVER TO COVER presented the greyhound to race in Race 6, Little Brown Jug Stakes, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Procaine, in its system in breach of Rule 86.1 and 86.3 of the greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
[2] Mrs Williams produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the lodging of the information.
The Rules
[3] Rule 86.1 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance.
Rule 86.4 provides:
Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that Race.
The Plea
[4] Prior to the date of hearing, Mr Stapleton had given notice that he wished to be represented at the hearing of the charge before the Committee by Licensed Trainer, Mr A C Roberts, as his lay advocate.
[5] A Respondent is entitled to be represented by a lay advocate approved by the Judicial Committee in terms of paragraph 23.5 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure as set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[6] The Committee approved Mr Roberts as lay advocate for Mr Stapleton.
[7] The above charge and Rule were read to Mr Roberts and he indicated that the charge was admitted by Mr Stapleton.
[8] Mr Stapleton having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
The Facts
[9] Mrs Williams presented the following Summary of Facts to the hearing:
1. The Respondent Deane Edwin Stapleton is a licensed trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and has been licensed since 2009.
2. On the 10th July 2015, COVER TO COVER was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Stapleton in Race 6 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Addington Raceway.
3. COVER TO COVER finished 1st in the race winning a stake of $1,320 which was paid to Mr Stapleton. COVER TO COVER is owned by Mr R J and Mrs R D Blackburn.
4. Following the race the Greyhound was routinely swabbed in the presence of Mr Stapleton and he does not contest the swabbing process.
5. All samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
6. On the 27th of July 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from COVER TO COVER had tested positive to Procaine.
7. Procaine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facia, a breach of the Rules. Procaine is classed as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance that is a local anaesthetic.
8. Mr Stapleton was interviewed at his property near Ashburton on Wednesday the 29th of July 2015. He was very co-operative and gave the Racing Investigators full access to the property.
9. A sample of urine was taken from COVER TO COVER as well as an unlabelled bottle was taken from the property and forwarded to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory for testing.
10. Mr Stapleton advised that he gets the meat that he feeds his greyhounds from Simply Pet Foods in Ashburton. Mr Stapleton had been sourcing his meat from Simply Pet Foods for several years.
11. Mr Collett from Simply Pet Foods confirmed by email that a cattle beast had been processed in his abattoir that had been treated on a farm with Propercillon and has provided the relevant paperwork corroborating this. This meat had been given to Mr Stapleton in error.
12. Simply Pet Foods supplies a lot of meat to a number of other greyhound trainers and this is the first mishap of this nature. The company is aware that racing greyhounds cannot be fed meat from cattle beasts that have been treated with any drugs due to the potential for contamination.
13. The New Zealand Racing Laboratory advised on 10th August 2015 that the urine sample taken from COVER TO COVER on the 29th of July had trace levels of Procaine still in its system. The unlabelled bottle did not contain Procaine.
14. Mr Stapleton was emailed the results from the Laboratory on 11th August 2015.
15. A written statement was taken from Mr Collett, Simply Pet Foods on the 28 August 2015.
16. Mr Stapleton has been involved in the greyhound industry for seven years. He has had a previous breach of this rule in 2010 and was fined $2,000 with costs of $350.
[10] Amongst other documents, Mrs Williams produced the Certificate of Analysis from New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services and a letter from Dr M L Jansen BVSc, Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, confirming Procaine as a prohibited substance under the Rules.
[11] Mr Roberts confirmed to the Committee that the Summary of Facts was accepted by the Respondent.
Penalty Submissions of the Informant
[12] Mrs Williams presented the following penalty submissions:
1. Mr Stapleton has pleaded guilty to a breach of Rules 86.1 and 86.3 after presenting COVER TO COVER at the races with a prohibited substance in its system, namely Procaine, at the Christchurch GRC race meeting on 10th July 2015.
2. The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 88.1
Rule 88.1
Any person found guilty of an offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one(1) offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning off.
3. The Rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound: Rule 86.4 states:
86.4 Any greyhound which competes in a race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that race.
4. 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 offences.
• 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 here.
5. Relevant Precedents –
In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedents.
R.I.U. v S J Payne – 7 April 2015
Subject: Procaine positives for three Greyhounds – fined $1,500 on each, total $4,500 with the Greyhounds disqualified. Decision appealed fine reduced to $2,000, $1,000 for the first positive and $500 for the following two greyhound positives.
Extract from Payne appeal decision: “8.4 Just as in the Lawrence case the breach by Mr Payne is properly described as an offence for which absence of fault or culpable conduct on the part of the person charged is no defence. That means that Mr Payne is liable for the positive swabs although there is no fault or culpable conduct on his part”.
R.I.U. v J M Whittaker – 17 August 2015
Subject: Caffeine positive with a horse – fined $1,000, costs $1,800. Extract from Whittaker decision: “RIU v L J Justice (2011) where that Committee stated ….. Penalties will be imposed for breaches of the rule which will recognise, reinforce and give effect to the pivotal significance of the rule in maintaining the integrity of racing, whether or not culpable conduct is involved. Naturally where culpable conduct is involved, penalties imposed will normally be greater than in cases where such conduct is absent but we think it is wrong and contrary to the intent and purpose of the rule to assume the absence of culpable conduct should attract no, or only a token penalty.”
R.I.U. v T Agent – 20 January 2015
Subject: Procaine positive – fined $3,000 and Greyhound disqualified.
R.I.U. v P M Williamson – 10 December 2012
Subject: Procaine positive with a horse – fined $3,500 and costs of $350 and horse disqualified.
6. Aggravating Features –
This is Mr Stapleton’s second breach of the Rule. Mr Stapleton was charged with a breach of presenting a greyhound with a prohibited substance in is system in 2010 and was fined $2,000 with costs of $350.
7. Mitigating Factors –
There was no malicious intent. This is purely a case the meat he has purchased has been contaminated.
Mr Stapleton admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has co-operated fully throughout the investigation.
8. Conclusion –
The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $3,000.
The reason for this figure is that the GRNZ Board approved new starting points for the Racing Integrity Unit and the Judicial Control Authority to consider for drug offences. The new starting points apply for offences committed from 1 September 2014. Procaine is classed as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance and the recommended starting point is a 3 month disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000.
Credit has to be given for the manner in which Mr Stapleton has conducted himself during this enquiry and admitting the breach at the first opportunity. However as this is Mr Stapleton’s second offence we believe the starting point of $3,000 is a suitable penalty.
We also seek the disqualification of COVER TO COVER under Rule 86.4 and the refund of the winning stake.
9. The R.I.U. are not seeking to recover any costs in this matter.
Penalty Submissions of the Respondent
[13] Mr Roberts said that Mr Stapleton was concerned about the severity of the penalty for unknowingly administering a prohibited substance to a greyhound when the positive swab has clearly been proved to have been the result of contaminated meat from the pet food supplier.
[14] Mr Roberts referred to some earlier instances of animals having been fed from a batch of contaminated kibble in which the trainers had received no penalty. He likened those cases to the present case as, in those cases, there was nothing on the packaging of the product to indicate that it contained any prohibited substance.
[15] Mr Roberts submitted that the average greyhound trainer purchases meat from pet food suppliers, in whom the trainers must put faith. This could amount to thousands of kilograms each week. Mr Stapleton had purchased his meat in good faith and fed it to his greyhounds, he said.
[16] Mr Roberts’ submission on behalf of Mr Stapleton was that the level of penalty being sought was high having regard to his lack of culpable conduct. In addition, he submitted, the earlier charge in 2010 should not be taken into account by the Committee in determining penalty in the circumstances.
[17] Mr Roberts told the Committee that Mr Stapleton is not in a strong financial position and would have been seeking a period of disqualification rather than a fine were it not for the consequences of a disqualification which would preclude him from assisting his father with the training of standardbred racehorses.
[18] Mr Roberts explained that Mr Stapleton had been forced to find other full-time employment, as the greyhound training operation had not been returning a sufficient income. It was for that reason that Mr Stapleton had been unable to attend the hearing.
Reasons for Penalty
[19] The starting point for determining penalty is that prescribed in the Penalty Guide for breaches of the Prohibited Substances Rule under the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing. The starting point so prescribed for the present breach, which is deemed to be a “Category 5” breach, is a disqualification for 3 months and/or a fine of $4,000.
[20] The Committee considered the previous decisions referred to by Mrs Williams in her penalty submissions. The harness racing case of Whittaker was a case in which the cause of the positive swab was established to be a food supplement and the Committee found no fault on the part of the trainer. In the Agent case, Procaine was administered by the trainer. In Williamson, the source of the Procaine could not be established.
[21] Of the cases referred to us by Mrs Williams, the most useful is the case of RIU v Payne which involved Procaine positives found in three greyhounds. It was established in that case that the positive swabs resulted from meat purchased from a reputable registered pet meat supplier. The Appeals Tribunal found that there was “no fault or culpable conduct” on the part of the Respondent. On appeal, the Respondent was fined $1,000 for the first charge and $500 on each of the second and third charges. The Tribunal found that there was no difference between that case and the greyhound case of Lawrence. In the Lawrence case, it was also found that there was an absence of fault or culpable conduct. The fine imposed for the first breach in that case, on appeal, was $1,000. This was in line with the Payne and Whittaker cases.
[22] What can be gathered from those cases is that the appropriate level of fine in a case in which there is no fault or culpability, in which the breach is admitted and where the Respondent has a clear record is a $1,000 fine.
[23] The Committee is of the view that the present case can be placed in the same category, culpability-wise, as the Payne, Lawrence and Whittaker cases.
[24] However, there is an aggravating factor in this case – the previous breach by Mr Stapleton of the Prohibited Substance Rule in 2010. On that occasion, Mr Stapleton was fined the sum of $2,000. That penalty now has to be looked at in the light of the penalties imposed in the three recent decisions that we have referred to.
[25] The Committee is satisfied that there has been no “fault or culpable conduct” on the part of Mr Stapleton. However, we agree with the earlier decisions that “the need for deterrence and denunciation accurately encapsulate the rationale for imposition of penalties for breaches of the rule, notwithstanding the absence of culpable conduct on the part of the trainer concerned” (Appeals Tribunal in Lawrence).
[26] The penalties in the Lawrence and Payne cases are authoritative and we have taken the effective fine of $1,000 in each of those cases as our present starting point. An uplift from that point is required for the aggravating factor of Mr Stapleton’s previous breach and the Committee considers that $1,000 is appropriate in that regard.
Penalty
[27] Mr Stapleton is fined the sum of $2,000.00.
Costs
[28] There will be no order for costs.
Disqualification of Greyhound
[29] Rule 86.4 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing (see above) requires this Committee to disqualify COVER TO COVER.
[30] It is ordered that COVER TO COVER is disqualified from Race 6, Little Brown Jug Stakes, at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 10 July 2015. It is further ordered that the stake of $1,320 be repaid to Greyhound Racing New Zealand and that the stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result for the race.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
Chair Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 22/10/2015
Publish Date: 22/10/2015
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: 1dbd0a39ed9b0c58aaea5d651c590aea
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 22/10/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v DE Stapleton - Reserved Decision on Penalty dated 22 October 2015
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 Greyhound Racing Association
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6408
BETWEEN KYLIE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND DEANE EDWIN STAPLETON of Rakaia, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman - Mr S C Ching, Committee Member
Present: Mrs K R Williams, Racing Investigator (the Informant)
Mr A C Roberts (Lay Advocate for the Respondent)
Mr N M Ydgren, Registrar
Date of Hearing: 9 October 2015
Date of Decision: 22 October 2015
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
The Charge
[1] Information No.A6408 alleges that, on the 10th day of July 2015, the Respondent being the registered trainer of the greyhound COVER TO COVER presented the greyhound to race in Race 6, Little Brown Jug Stakes, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Procaine, in its system in breach of Rule 86.1 and 86.3 of the greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
[2] Mrs Williams produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the lodging of the information.
The Rules
[3] Rule 86.1 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance.
Rule 86.4 provides:
Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that Race.
The Plea
[4] Prior to the date of hearing, Mr Stapleton had given notice that he wished to be represented at the hearing of the charge before the Committee by Licensed Trainer, Mr A C Roberts, as his lay advocate.
[5] A Respondent is entitled to be represented by a lay advocate approved by the Judicial Committee in terms of paragraph 23.5 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure as set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[6] The Committee approved Mr Roberts as lay advocate for Mr Stapleton.
[7] The above charge and Rule were read to Mr Roberts and he indicated that the charge was admitted by Mr Stapleton.
[8] Mr Stapleton having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
The Facts
[9] Mrs Williams presented the following Summary of Facts to the hearing:
1. The Respondent Deane Edwin Stapleton is a licensed trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and has been licensed since 2009.
2. On the 10th July 2015, COVER TO COVER was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Stapleton in Race 6 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Addington Raceway.
3. COVER TO COVER finished 1st in the race winning a stake of $1,320 which was paid to Mr Stapleton. COVER TO COVER is owned by Mr R J and Mrs R D Blackburn.
4. Following the race the Greyhound was routinely swabbed in the presence of Mr Stapleton and he does not contest the swabbing process.
5. All samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
6. On the 27th of July 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from COVER TO COVER had tested positive to Procaine.
7. Procaine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facia, a breach of the Rules. Procaine is classed as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance that is a local anaesthetic.
8. Mr Stapleton was interviewed at his property near Ashburton on Wednesday the 29th of July 2015. He was very co-operative and gave the Racing Investigators full access to the property.
9. A sample of urine was taken from COVER TO COVER as well as an unlabelled bottle was taken from the property and forwarded to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory for testing.
10. Mr Stapleton advised that he gets the meat that he feeds his greyhounds from Simply Pet Foods in Ashburton. Mr Stapleton had been sourcing his meat from Simply Pet Foods for several years.
11. Mr Collett from Simply Pet Foods confirmed by email that a cattle beast had been processed in his abattoir that had been treated on a farm with Propercillon and has provided the relevant paperwork corroborating this. This meat had been given to Mr Stapleton in error.
12. Simply Pet Foods supplies a lot of meat to a number of other greyhound trainers and this is the first mishap of this nature. The company is aware that racing greyhounds cannot be fed meat from cattle beasts that have been treated with any drugs due to the potential for contamination.
13. The New Zealand Racing Laboratory advised on 10th August 2015 that the urine sample taken from COVER TO COVER on the 29th of July had trace levels of Procaine still in its system. The unlabelled bottle did not contain Procaine.
14. Mr Stapleton was emailed the results from the Laboratory on 11th August 2015.
15. A written statement was taken from Mr Collett, Simply Pet Foods on the 28 August 2015.
16. Mr Stapleton has been involved in the greyhound industry for seven years. He has had a previous breach of this rule in 2010 and was fined $2,000 with costs of $350.
[10] Amongst other documents, Mrs Williams produced the Certificate of Analysis from New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services and a letter from Dr M L Jansen BVSc, Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, confirming Procaine as a prohibited substance under the Rules.
[11] Mr Roberts confirmed to the Committee that the Summary of Facts was accepted by the Respondent.
Penalty Submissions of the Informant
[12] Mrs Williams presented the following penalty submissions:
1. Mr Stapleton has pleaded guilty to a breach of Rules 86.1 and 86.3 after presenting COVER TO COVER at the races with a prohibited substance in its system, namely Procaine, at the Christchurch GRC race meeting on 10th July 2015.
2. The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 88.1
Rule 88.1
Any person found guilty of an offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one(1) offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning off.
3. The Rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound: Rule 86.4 states:
86.4 Any greyhound which competes in a race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that race.
4. 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 offences.
• 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 here.
5. Relevant Precedents –
In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedents.
R.I.U. v S J Payne – 7 April 2015
Subject: Procaine positives for three Greyhounds – fined $1,500 on each, total $4,500 with the Greyhounds disqualified. Decision appealed fine reduced to $2,000, $1,000 for the first positive and $500 for the following two greyhound positives.
Extract from Payne appeal decision: “8.4 Just as in the Lawrence case the breach by Mr Payne is properly described as an offence for which absence of fault or culpable conduct on the part of the person charged is no defence. That means that Mr Payne is liable for the positive swabs although there is no fault or culpable conduct on his part”.
R.I.U. v J M Whittaker – 17 August 2015
Subject: Caffeine positive with a horse – fined $1,000, costs $1,800. Extract from Whittaker decision: “RIU v L J Justice (2011) where that Committee stated ….. Penalties will be imposed for breaches of the rule which will recognise, reinforce and give effect to the pivotal significance of the rule in maintaining the integrity of racing, whether or not culpable conduct is involved. Naturally where culpable conduct is involved, penalties imposed will normally be greater than in cases where such conduct is absent but we think it is wrong and contrary to the intent and purpose of the rule to assume the absence of culpable conduct should attract no, or only a token penalty.”
R.I.U. v T Agent – 20 January 2015
Subject: Procaine positive – fined $3,000 and Greyhound disqualified.
R.I.U. v P M Williamson – 10 December 2012
Subject: Procaine positive with a horse – fined $3,500 and costs of $350 and horse disqualified.
6. Aggravating Features –
This is Mr Stapleton’s second breach of the Rule. Mr Stapleton was charged with a breach of presenting a greyhound with a prohibited substance in is system in 2010 and was fined $2,000 with costs of $350.
7. Mitigating Factors –
There was no malicious intent. This is purely a case the meat he has purchased has been contaminated.
Mr Stapleton admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has co-operated fully throughout the investigation.
8. Conclusion –
The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $3,000.
The reason for this figure is that the GRNZ Board approved new starting points for the Racing Integrity Unit and the Judicial Control Authority to consider for drug offences. The new starting points apply for offences committed from 1 September 2014. Procaine is classed as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance and the recommended starting point is a 3 month disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000.
Credit has to be given for the manner in which Mr Stapleton has conducted himself during this enquiry and admitting the breach at the first opportunity. However as this is Mr Stapleton’s second offence we believe the starting point of $3,000 is a suitable penalty.
We also seek the disqualification of COVER TO COVER under Rule 86.4 and the refund of the winning stake.
9. The R.I.U. are not seeking to recover any costs in this matter.
Penalty Submissions of the Respondent
[13] Mr Roberts said that Mr Stapleton was concerned about the severity of the penalty for unknowingly administering a prohibited substance to a greyhound when the positive swab has clearly been proved to have been the result of contaminated meat from the pet food supplier.
[14] Mr Roberts referred to some earlier instances of animals having been fed from a batch of contaminated kibble in which the trainers had received no penalty. He likened those cases to the present case as, in those cases, there was nothing on the packaging of the product to indicate that it contained any prohibited substance.
[15] Mr Roberts submitted that the average greyhound trainer purchases meat from pet food suppliers, in whom the trainers must put faith. This could amount to thousands of kilograms each week. Mr Stapleton had purchased his meat in good faith and fed it to his greyhounds, he said.
[16] Mr Roberts’ submission on behalf of Mr Stapleton was that the level of penalty being sought was high having regard to his lack of culpable conduct. In addition, he submitted, the earlier charge in 2010 should not be taken into account by the Committee in determining penalty in the circumstances.
[17] Mr Roberts told the Committee that Mr Stapleton is not in a strong financial position and would have been seeking a period of disqualification rather than a fine were it not for the consequences of a disqualification which would preclude him from assisting his father with the training of standardbred racehorses.
[18] Mr Roberts explained that Mr Stapleton had been forced to find other full-time employment, as the greyhound training operation had not been returning a sufficient income. It was for that reason that Mr Stapleton had been unable to attend the hearing.
Reasons for Penalty
[19] The starting point for determining penalty is that prescribed in the Penalty Guide for breaches of the Prohibited Substances Rule under the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing. The starting point so prescribed for the present breach, which is deemed to be a “Category 5” breach, is a disqualification for 3 months and/or a fine of $4,000.
[20] The Committee considered the previous decisions referred to by Mrs Williams in her penalty submissions. The harness racing case of Whittaker was a case in which the cause of the positive swab was established to be a food supplement and the Committee found no fault on the part of the trainer. In the Agent case, Procaine was administered by the trainer. In Williamson, the source of the Procaine could not be established.
[21] Of the cases referred to us by Mrs Williams, the most useful is the case of RIU v Payne which involved Procaine positives found in three greyhounds. It was established in that case that the positive swabs resulted from meat purchased from a reputable registered pet meat supplier. The Appeals Tribunal found that there was “no fault or culpable conduct” on the part of the Respondent. On appeal, the Respondent was fined $1,000 for the first charge and $500 on each of the second and third charges. The Tribunal found that there was no difference between that case and the greyhound case of Lawrence. In the Lawrence case, it was also found that there was an absence of fault or culpable conduct. The fine imposed for the first breach in that case, on appeal, was $1,000. This was in line with the Payne and Whittaker cases.
[22] What can be gathered from those cases is that the appropriate level of fine in a case in which there is no fault or culpability, in which the breach is admitted and where the Respondent has a clear record is a $1,000 fine.
[23] The Committee is of the view that the present case can be placed in the same category, culpability-wise, as the Payne, Lawrence and Whittaker cases.
[24] However, there is an aggravating factor in this case – the previous breach by Mr Stapleton of the Prohibited Substance Rule in 2010. On that occasion, Mr Stapleton was fined the sum of $2,000. That penalty now has to be looked at in the light of the penalties imposed in the three recent decisions that we have referred to.
[25] The Committee is satisfied that there has been no “fault or culpable conduct” on the part of Mr Stapleton. However, we agree with the earlier decisions that “the need for deterrence and denunciation accurately encapsulate the rationale for imposition of penalties for breaches of the rule, notwithstanding the absence of culpable conduct on the part of the trainer concerned” (Appeals Tribunal in Lawrence).
[26] The penalties in the Lawrence and Payne cases are authoritative and we have taken the effective fine of $1,000 in each of those cases as our present starting point. An uplift from that point is required for the aggravating factor of Mr Stapleton’s previous breach and the Committee considers that $1,000 is appropriate in that regard.
Penalty
[27] Mr Stapleton is fined the sum of $2,000.00.
Costs
[28] There will be no order for costs.
Disqualification of Greyhound
[29] Rule 86.4 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing (see above) requires this Committee to disqualify COVER TO COVER.
[30] It is ordered that COVER TO COVER is disqualified from Race 6, Little Brown Jug Stakes, at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 10 July 2015. It is further ordered that the stake of $1,320 be repaid to Greyhound Racing New Zealand and that the stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result for the race.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
Chair 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: