Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PL McKenzie 26 April 2013 – Decision dated 7 May 2013

hearingid: 17be382cfe8e9fd0cc420ea07c89fb77

informantnumber: A4913

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 07/05/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PL McKenzie 26 April 2013 - Decision dated 7 May 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT v PETER MCKENZIE

Hearing before Non-Raceday Judicial Committee

Judicial Committee:

Mr Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)
Mr Richard Seabrook

Present:

Mr Michael Colson, Counsel for RIU
Ms Frances Everitt, Counsel for RIU
Mr Michael Zarb, Stipendiary Steward
Mr Tony Ryan, Counsel for Mr McKenzie
Mr Peter McKenzie
Mr Paul Williams, Registrar

Date of Hearing:

26 April 2013

Venue:

The Offices of the Judicial Control Authority, Wellington

1. Introduction:

1.1. This hearing of the Judicial Committee was convened to consider and determine a charge of misconduct brought against Mr McKenzie under Rule 340 of the Rules of Racing arising out of events which occurred on Thursday 3 January 2013 when Mr McKenzie was travelling to Greymouth and subsequently on Saturday 5 January 2013 at the Omoto Racecourse at Greymouth. The charge against Mr McKenzie alleges that on both occasions he used offensive and insulting language directed at Stipendiary Steward Mr Michael Zarb and was accordingly guilty of misconduct under the Rule referred to. The charge laid against Mr McKenzie under Information No. A4913 was in the following terms:

"Trainer P McKenzie misconducted himself, firstly on Thursday 3 Jan on the phone and then again in the Steward’s Room today”.

The Information was dated 5 January 2013 and duly completed in accordance with the requirements of the Rules.

1.2 Subsequently at the request of Mr McKenzie further particulars of the charge were provided. In relation to the events of 3 January 2013 it was alleged that in the course of and/or during one or more of four telephone conversations on that date Mr McKenzie used offensive and insulting language directed at Mr Zarb. The particulars alleged the offensive and insulting language used by Mr McKenzie during the course of the telephone conversations was as follows:

“(i) are you that incompetent, pull over and make a decision;

(ii) are you that arrogant that you think you can dictate who I put on my horses? Where did you come from? Do you have any experience;

(iii) so you are stupid”.

In addition the particulars alleged that in the course of the four telephone conversations Mr McKenzie generally conducted himself in an aggressive, disrespectful and/or inappropriate manner.

1.3 In relation to the events of Saturday 5 January 2013 the particulars alleged that in the Steward’s Room at the Omoto Racecourse, Greymouth Mr McKenzie again used offensive and insulting language directed at Mr Zarb. The offensive and insulting language alleged to have been used by Mr McKenzie on this occasion was as follows:

“(i) your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance;

(ii) I have never met anybody as ignorant as you in all the years;

(iii) I don’t care about anything you might say;

(iv) I think you are a ridiculous and arrogant person;

(v) I have no desire to speak to you again;

(vi) you are an extreme example of a man with a white coat on. You’re probably better off out there picking up shit;

(vii) your arrogant attitude is certainly not welcome and you would be much better off to go back where you came from”.

Again in relation to the events of 5 January 2013 it is alleged Mr McKenzie also generally conducted himself in an aggressive disrespectful and inappropriate manner

2. Background/Evidence:

2.1 Mr McKenzie is an experienced Licensed Trainer who operates a thoroughbred horse stud at Ohau near Levin. On Thursday 3 January 2013 he took four horses from his stud at Ohau intending to travel to Omoto Racecourse at Greymouth where two of the horses were scheduled to race. The evidence was that Mr McKenzie left Ohau at about 5am that morning, crossed to the South Island on the inter-island ferry and subsequently offloaded the horses at Blenheim Racecourse to enable them to have a “spell from the truck” (as he put it) before the six hour journey to Greymouth. His evidence was that the South Island had been subject to a storm that week and on arrival in Blenheim Mr McKenzie discovered the road to Greymouth was closed due to flooding. This meant that he had to wait with his horses at the Blenheim Racecourse until about 4pm when he ascertained the road was passable and he was able to recommence the journey to Greymouth in sufficient time to give his horses at least a day to recover before racing the following Saturday. Mr McKenzie said that at about 3.50pm that afternoon, shortly before loading the horses to travel to Greymouth, he received a telephone call from Mr Ross Doherty who he had arranged to ride his horses at the race meeting on the following Saturday. Mr Doherty informed him he was unable to ride the horses as had been arranged and Mr McKenzie was left in a position where he was required to arrange for a replacement rider.

2.2 According to Mr McKenzie Mr Doherty was an experienced rider, although still an Apprentice, and that the horses that he had been scheduled to ride both needed a strong rider as a replacement because of their temperaments and what he referred to as “barrier issues”.

2.3 On receiving advice of Mr Doherty’s unavailability Mr McKenzie said that he immediately telephoned the NZTR Bureau in order to ascertain who might be available to replace Mr Doherty. Of those that he was told were available he said he considered Kylie Williams would be most suitable and he called Ms Williams to confirm she would be available to accept the rides, which she was. Mr McKenzie then telephoned the NZTR Bureau back and informed the person to whom he spoke that Ms Williams would be riding his horses in place of Mr Doherty. He said he was then asked whether he had told the Stipendiary Stewards of the change. He said he asked the person to whom he spoke at the NZTR Bureau to do that as he was anxious to get on the road because of the weather and the time it would take him to travel to Omoto Racecourse.

2.4 Mr McKenzie said he then loaded two of his horses back on to the truck. At that time he received a telephone call from the NZTR Bureau informing him that the Stipendiary Steward would not permit him to engage Ms Williams to ride his horses. When Mr McKenzie inquired of the reason why he was told he should contact the Stipendiary Steward to ascertain the reasons for the refusal. He was then given the number to call to speak to the Stipendiary Steward concerned.

2.5 Mr McKenzie then put a call through to the telephone number that he had been given and spoke with Mr Zarb who at that time was driving home from the Christchurch Greyhound Meeting which had been conducted the same day. Mr Zarb’s evidence was that prior to receiving the call from Mr McKenzie he had spoken to a person from the Racing Bureau who had told him that Mr Doherty was not available to ride Mr McKenzie’s horses at the Greymouth Meeting the following Saturday and that Mr McKenzie wanted to replace him with Kylie Williams. Mr Zarb’s evidence was that he told the person to whom he spoke from the Racing Bureau that the usual policy was to replace an Apprentice with an Apprentice but that if Mr McKenzie had any problems he could give him a call. He said that shortly after terminating the call with the Racing Bureau he received the first telephone call from Mr McKenzie.

2.6 Mr Zarb’s evidence as to what transpired in the telephone calls between he and Mr McKenzie on that date was based on his recollection of the conversations recorded in a note which he prepared some three days later on the evening of 6 January 2013. The note itself however was prepared from handwritten notes he made in a notebook he had with him in which he recorded aspects of the conversations that he had with Mr McKenzie that day. Mr Zarb said that the notes recorded in his notebook were made “slightly” after the four telephone calls he had with Mr McKenzie that day were completed.

2.7 Mr Zarb’s evidence of the first call he received from Mr McKenzie which later evidence revealed was shortly after 4.32pm, was that after introducing himself Mr McKenzie said he wanted to replace Jockeys at Greymouth. Mr Zarb said he told Mr McKenzie the usual policy was for an Apprentice to be replaced with an Apprentice to which Mr McKenzie responded he didn’t want to put an Apprentice on his horses. There then followed a discussion about Mr Doherty following which Mr McKenzie reiterated he did not want to put an Apprentice on his horses. Mr Zarb’s evidence was he then told Mr McKenzie that if there was no suitable Apprentice Mr Doherty could be replaced with a Jockey but that he was driving home and if Mr McKenzie would give him 20 minutes he would see who was available and would call Mr McKenzie back. Mr Zarb said Mr McKenzie then insisted on an immediate answer pointing out that he had a six hour drive ahead of him. Mr Zarb told him that he appreciated that but would see who was available. He said Mr McKenzie again said he would not put an Apprentice on his horses and would scratch them if he had to do so. Mr Zarb indicated that was up to Mr McKenzie but he couldn’t help until he saw who was available. His evidence was Mr McKenzie then asked him whether he was telling him to scratch his horses to which Mr Zarb replied it was up to Mr McKenzie but if he would give him 15 minutes he would be home and could see who was available. He said Mr McKenzie then made the comment:

“Are you that incompetent, pull over and make a decision”.

to which Mr Zarb replied he would call Mr McKenzie back in 15 minutes and then terminated the call.

2.8 Mr Zarb said that within 30 seconds he received a further telephone call from Mr McKenzie. After again identifying himself he said Mr McKenzie then made the following comment:

“Do you know what you are doing? Are you that arrogant that you think you can dictate who I put on my horses? Where did you come from? Do you have any experience?”

Mr Zarb then explained to Mr McKenzie the length of time that he had been working in what he called the “industry” and that everywhere he had worked the same policy of an Apprentice for an Apprentice had applied. His evidence was that Mr McKenzie then made the comment:

“So you are stupid. Don’t you know the Jockeys in your area? Pull over and give me a decision now”.

Mr Zarb replied that he had just pulled into his driveway, would see who was available, and would call Mr McKenzie back in five minutes. He then terminated the call.

2.9 Mr Zarb said he then unpacked his computer and while he was attempting to see what Jockeys were available received a third call from Mr McKenzie some two minutes, approximately, after the termination of the previous call. He said the conversation with Mr McKenzie opened by Mr McKenzie saying to him:

“Your time’s up, make a decision”.

to which he replied he had told him previously he would call back in five minutes and he then terminated that call.

2.10 Mr Zarb gave evidence that after viewing the fields and the available Jockeys, some two minutes or so after he ended the previous call, he rang Mr McKenzie back. After identifying himself and inquiring what races Mr McKenzie wanted to replace Mr Doherty in, and receiving that information, he indicated it would be in order for Mr McKenzie to have Ms Williams ride his horses in the races concerned.
2.11 Mr McKenzie’s evidence of the sequence of events is largely but not entirely the same as that given by Mr Zarb. In relation to the first call Mr McKenzie said that after he had introduced himself and inquired as to the reason why Ms Williams was not being allowed to ride his horses Mr Zarb responded that Ms Williams could not ride as she was not an Apprentice and that Mr McKenzie should call him back in half an hour. Mr McKenzie said he asked Mr Zarb what the issue was and the latter responded by saying he would not discuss it. He said Mr Zarb explained he was driving and would be home in half an hour if Mr McKenzie wanted to call him then. Mr McKenzie said he indicated that was not good enough and asked Mr Zarb to deal with the matter then, explaining he was travelling to Greymouth, the road had just been opened and he wanted to get on the road. He told Mr Zarb he couldn’t see what the problem was and asked why it couldn’t be dealt with there and then. He said Mr Zarb again responded by saying he would not discuss the matter and Mr McKenzie would have to wait until he got home. Mr McKenzie acknowledged he became upset at the response from Mr Zarb and insisted he (Mr Zarb) discuss the matter as he had two horses already on the truck and it was essential that he get through to Omoto Racecourse. Mr McKenzie said he considered it totally unnecessary for him to be held up that way.

2.12 Mr McKenzie said Mr Zarb continued to say that he would not talk to him and when he asked what experience and knowledge Mr Zarb had of the industry Mr Zarb had yelled in reply that he had 26 years in the industry. Mr McKenzie said he responded by telling Mr Zarb he was being “very ignorant” and asked him to pull over and discuss the problem because he was not going to drive a further six hours with a truck of horses to find that he was unable to put the rider on that he wanted to ride the horses. He said that he told Mr Zarb that if that was what he was facing he would withdraw his horses from the races. He said that Mr Zarb replied that if he wanted to scratch the horses that was his business and had nothing to do with him. Mr McKenzie said it was at that point he informed Mr Zarb he was being stupid and that his ignorance was now being exceeded by his arrogance. He said further discussion ensued without the matter being progressed and when the phone went dead he again telephoned Mr Zarb who took the call and said that he was nearly home and asked for five minutes to look at his computer. He said Mr Zarb told him that he would call him after he had done so.

2.13 After a few minutes Mr McKenzie received a call from Mr Zarb in which Mr Zarb asked Mr McKenzie to identify the horses he had racing at Omoto on the Saturday and that Mr Zarb then indicated to him it was in order for Ms Williams to ride the horses in the races in which they were scheduled to run.

2.14 On Saturday 5 January 2013 Mr McKenzie had two horses running in the first and third races of the Greymouth Jockey Club Meeting at Omoto Racecourse. He said that whilst he was preparing his horses for the races he was approached and asked to attend at the Stewards’ Room. Despite what he said was “the inconvenience” he went to the Stewards’ Room where he was introduced to Mr Zarb who was seated at a desk. He said the discussion between Mr Zarb and himself commenced with reference to the telephone calls between them the previous Thursday. Mr McKenzie said that he told Mr Zarb that as far as he was concerned Mr Zarb’s behaviour then and again at the current time left much to be desired. He said Mr Zarb replied he had been in the industry for 27 years and that he was entitled to respect. Mr McKenzie said that he told Mr Zarb that he did not want to listen to him and left the Stewards’ Room.

2.15 Shortly afterwards Mr McKenzie was approached by another Stipendiary Steward who told him that he was wanted back in the Stewards’ Room again. On entering the Stewards’ Room he said Mr Zarb pushed a document towards him and demanded he sign it. Mr McKenzie told him that he would not sign anything and again left the Stewards’ Room. He said that some time later a Stipendiary Steward came back to him at the stables and asked him to sign the document failing which Mr Zarb was going to have a charge heard against him without him being present as Mr Zarb was apparently taking the view Mr McKenzie had been shown the charge, which could be taken as having been served, and the matter could proceed in his absence. Mr McKenzie said he then went back to the Stewards’ Room for the third time and after reading and signing the charge denied the allegation of misconduct it contained. He said Mr Zarb then told him the matter would be heard by the JCA to which Mr McKenzie responded by asking who the JCA was.

2.16 Mr McKenzie then said that he indicated that he would not be available to have the matter heard that day nor at following meetings at Kumara or Hokitika as he had horses racing and there was not time to consider the charge. He said that a “gentleman of the JCA” agreed it was a serious charge carrying a substantial penalty and the matter should be adjourned until a later date to enable him to be prepared for the hearing.

2.17 Mr McKenzie continued his evidence before us by referring to a further interaction with Mr Zarb at a race meeting at Hokitika following the events relating to the charge he faces. In describing the exchange with Mr Zarb on this occasion Mr McKenzie was again critical of Mr Zarb describing his manner as “abrasive” and “impolite”. His evidence continued with various criticisms of Mr Zarb including his alleged unfamiliarity with the Rules of Racing and what Mr McKenzie described as Mr Zarb’s lack of empathy for the predicament Mr McKenzie found himself in at the time of the various telephone discussions on 3 January 2013. Mr McKenzie referred to Mr Zarb’s attitude as being designed to “… make life as difficult as possible …” for him and offered the opinion, presumably based on his interactions with Mr Zarb, that “… the position of Stipendiary Steward is not to be interpreted by them as having dictatorial powers but rather to facilitate and to assist trainers and other persons involved in the industry …”. All of this evidence seemed to the Committee to be rather in the nature of submissions by Mr McKenzie to provide justification for the part he played in the events of 3 January and 5 January 2013 as outlined.

2.18 Under cross examination and in response to questions from the Committee Mr McKenzie claimed to have never heard of the policy whereby an Apprentice was to be replaced by another Apprentice which Mr Zarb said he had explained to Mr McKenzie during the first telephone discussion on 3 January 2013. Mr McKenzie said he did not recall Mr Zarb mentioning the policy to him and observed that had he done so the discussions which followed would have taken a “different tack”. When asked by the Committee whether he used the words set out in the particulars of the charges as recorded in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of this Decision Mr McKenzie agreed he made the comments set out in paragraph 1.3. In relation to the comments recorded in paragraph 1.2 he responded that the comments he did make were those recorded in paragraph 13 of his Brief of Evidence as summarised in paragraph 2.12 of this Decision. He acknowledged that in both the telephone discussions with Mr Zarb and in the Stewards’ Room at Omoto Racecourse on 5 January 2013 he conducted himself in an aggressive manner but denied he was disrespectful or that his conduct was inappropriate.

2.19 Mr Zarb’s evidence of what occurred in the Stewards’ Room at the Omoto Racecourse on Saturday 5 January 2013 is somewhat different to that given by Mr McKenzie. Mr Zarb said in evidence that when Mr McKenzie arrived at the Stewards’ Room he told him he wanted to speak with him in relation to his manner on the phone the previous Thursday. He said Mr McKenzie responded by saying:

“Yes, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance”.

Mr Zarb then said that he told Mr McKenzie he was going to be issued with a warning to which Mr McKenzie responded:

“I have never met anybody as ignorant as you in all the years …”

Mr Zarb said the he went on to explain that he had been in the industry for some 27 years and that his job demanded some respect. He said that he told Mr McKenzie that if he spoke to him again as he had, he would be taking him “… straight to the JCA …” to which Mr McKenzie responded with a comment about not wasting time following which he said:

“I think you are a ridiculous and arrogant person …”

There then followed a discussion between Mr McKenzie and Mr Zarb arising from a comment made by Mr McKenzie about Mr Zarb dictating to him who could and who could not ride his horses at the conclusion of which Mr McKenzie made the further comment:

“You’re an extreme example of a man with a white coat on. You’re probably better off out there picking up the shit”.

At that point Mr Zarb said that he asked Mr McKenzie to wait outside to which Mr McKenzie responded that he did not have time as he had a horse in the following race.

2.20 Mr Zarb then went on to describe the occasion when Mr McKenzie returned to the Stewards’ Room and was advised an Information would be laid against him. He said Mr McKenzie was advised of the details of the Information and whether he admitted or denied the charge. He said Mr McKenzie refused to admit or deny the charge or sign the Information. Mr McKenzie was told the discussion then taking place between was being tape recorded in the course of which Mr McKenzie made the comment to Mr Zarb:

“Your arrogant attitude is certainly not welcome and you would be much better off to go back from where you came from”.

Mr Zarb said that he asked Mr McKenzie not to leave without calling in to see him again but Mr McKenzie indicated that he had horses to look after following which the conversation in which Mr McKenzie inquired as to who the JCA was, as recorded earlier, took place.

2.21 The tape recording of the exchanges which took place between Mr McKenzie and Mr Zarb in the Stewards’ Room on 5 January 2013 in which the exchanges and comments just recorded took place was played to us during Mr Zarb’s evidence.

3. Submissions:

3.1 At the conclusion of the evidence of Mr Zarb and Mr McKenzie we heard submissions from Counsel. We think it necessary only to record the salient points in this decision.

3.2 Mr Colson submitted that although misconduct was not defined in the Rules, depending on circumstances and context, offensive and insulting language could amount to misconduct under R. 340. His submission was that the comments made by Mr McKenzie as contained in the particulars of the charge, given their nature and the fact they were made to a Stipendiary Steward in the course of his duties, coupled with the aggressive manner in which they were made, amounted to misconduct under R. 340. In that regard he submitted that Mr McKenzie’s behaviour, encompassing both what he said and his aggressive manner, made Mr Zarb’s task as a Stipendiary Steward from whom McKenzie was seeking permission to replace a Jockey, more difficult to carry out and that was a factor which told in favour of the conduct of Mr McKenzie being characterised as misconduct.

3.3 For his part Mr Ryan accepted that in appropriate circumstances the use of offensive and insulting language could amount to misconduct under R. 340. In this instance however he submitted Mr McKenzie’s words and the conduct did not amount to misconduct for the following reasons:

• It was not misbehaviour of a serious nature;

• Mr Zarb’s attitude to Mr McKenzie in the telephone discussions on 3 January 2013 was unreasonable and unhelpful and Mr McKenzie was entitled to express himself in forcible terms to get his message across and to convey to Mr Zarb the predicament he believed he was in;

• The comments made by Mr McKenzie in the Stewards' Room on 5 January 2013 were in the same category and similarly justified by Mr McKenzie’s frustration at Mr Zarb’s failure to appreciate that Mr McKenzie had horses about to race;

• That Mr Zarb had demonstrated that he was not “up to scratch” as a Stipendiary Steward and the “white coat” statement by Mr McKenzie was simply his way of communicating that Mr Zarb should be occupying a lower position than that of Stipendiary Steward.

3.4 By analogy with cases within the criminal jurisdiction to which he referred Mr Ryan submitted that in order to amount to misconduct under R. 340 the language used must be sufficiently serious to warrant intervention of the Rules of Racing and that required the language used to be assessed in relation to the time, place and circumstances in which it was used. He then referred to the circumstances in which the alleged offensive and insulting language was used by Mr McKenzie and submitted that his conduct on the two days in question was “completely understandable”. Mr Ryan also invoked s. 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and submitted that as no issue of disturbance of public order arose in relation to the telephone discussions on 3 January 2013 Mr McKenzie’s conduct during those conversations could not be construed as misconduct under the Rule. Less strongly he advanced the same argument in relation to events in the Stewards’ Room on 5 January 2013.

3.5 Finally Mr Ryan noted that Mr Zarb was not unduly offended by what had been said to him by Mr McKenzie and that the comments had the desired effect in as much as Mr Zarb finally agreed to let Mr McKenzie replace Mr Doherty with Ms Williams as Jockey on the horses he had racing at Omoto Racecourse on 5 January 2013. Mr Ryan submitted that Mr McKenzie was an experienced Horseman and should not be tarnished with a finding he has misconducted himself under the Rules of Racing based on the evidence presented in this case.

4. Discussion:

4.1 We are in no doubt that the use of offensive and insulting language will, in appropriate circumstances, amount to misconduct under R. 340. The circumstances will not only determine whether or not the language concerned amounts to misconduct under R. 340 but will also be relevant to the issue of whether or not the misconduct alleged is subject to the Rules of Racing. In the latter regard we are satisfied that the events of 3 January 2013 and 5 January 2013 recorded in this decision involving Mr Zarb and Mr McKenzie were all “… matters connected with racing …” within R. 101(1) of the Rules of Racing and accordingly matters to which the Rules applied.

4.2 We are equally in no doubt, despite the submissions made to us by Mr Ryan, that it is no defence to a charge of misconduct under R. 340, involving the use of offensive and insulting language, that the person charged may have been provoked or felt justified in using the offending language by the conduct or language of the person or persons involved in the interchange in which the offending language was used. Those matters may be relevant to the assessment of penalty but do not, in our view, constitute a defence to the charge.

4.3 Mr Ryan’s submissions in relation to s. 14 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which preserves the right to freedom of expression did not, as we understood them, extend to a claim that R. 340 relating to misconduct could not lawfully proscribe the use of offensive or insulting language in situations or circumstances to which the Rules of Racing apply. Nor in our view could s. 14 do so. The right to proscribe such conduct under the Rules of Racing is a reasonable limitation within s. 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the right to freedom of expression protected by s. 14. Rather Mr Ryan’s submissions under this head were to the effect that by reason of s. 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the authorities to which he referred there could be no misconduct under R. 340 unless the language used by Mr McKenzie involved some kind of disturbance of public order which was demonstrably absent in this case. We do not accept the submission. In our view the misconduct charge in this case will have been proved if the language used was in the circumstances, objectively viewed, offensive and insulting. R. 340 does not involve any requirement to prove disturbance of public order and we do not believe that s. 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the authorities to which we were referred by Mr Ryan, which deal with offences against public order, impose that additional requirement on R. 340 which applies only to the limited situations and c

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

5.2 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Colson will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:

(i) Mr Colson is to file and serve on Mr Ryan his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this decision;

(ii) Mr Ryan will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Colson’s submissions to file his submissions in reply;

(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficult with that timetable.

DATED at Wellington this 7th day of May 2013

___________________________
Bruce Squire QC (Chairman)
Signed pursuant to R. 920
 

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 340

Informant: Mr M Zarb - Stipendiary Steward

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr M Colson - Counsel for Racing Integrity Unit, Ms Frances Everitt - Counsel for Racing Inegrity Unit, Mr T Ryan - Counsel for Mr McKenzie, Mr P Williams - Registrar

Respondent: Mr PL McKenzie - Licensed 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: