Non Raceday Inquiry – Request for Ruling – Decision dated 28 August 2014
ID: JCA11247
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN TIMOTHY ROBIN VINCE – Applicant – Licenced Trainer
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT - Respondent
Information: A4215
REQUEST FOR A RULING
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman) – GR Jones (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr J N Bioletti for the Applicant, Mr R Neal for the Respondent
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mr Timothy Vince is a Licenced Trainer who up until the 1st of August 2014 had leased training facilities at Alexandra Park. On the 15th of August 2014 Mr Vince was served with a Trespass Notice banning him from entry to Alexandra Park for a period of two years from that date.
2. Mr Vince lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee at Harness Waikato’s Meeting on the 21st of August 2014. That Information was a Request for a Ruling and that Request was “That having been trespassed from Alexandra Park I need a Ruling regarding when I enter and accept with a horse I train at that venue how I stand under the Rules whether I can be there to attend the horse under my obligation as a Trainer”.
3. The Judicial Committee of the night accepted the Information Requesting a Ruling from Mr Vince and although the deposit is referred to on the Information it would appear that Mr Vince was not asked to pay it.
4. The Judicial Committee then opened the Hearing and then adjourned it to a time and place to be set by the Executive Office of the JCA.
5. A telephone conference between Mr Bioletti, Mr Neal and this Committee was set for the 26th of August 2014.
6. Prior to that telephone conference Mr Bioletti filed with the JCA an Affidavit from Mr Vince in support of his Request for a Ruling. The Affidavit in essence advised the Committee of the dispute that lead to Mr Vince being served with a Trespass Notice and his efforts to mediate any dispute. It also traversed his history in Harness Racing and the effect that the Trespass Notice would have on him in terms of his racing horses at Alexandra Park. The Affidavit also suggested that the Trespass Notice contravenes the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence to Train which Licence admits him to any Harness Racing Meeting in New Zealand.
7. At the telephone conference on the 26th of August Mr Bioletti confirmed that he was acting for Mr Vince and Mr Neal appeared for the RIU. Due to the need to expedite this matter it was agreed that it could be heard “on the papers”.
8. At the outset of the telephone conference the Chairman raised with the parties the Committee’s concerns about it having jurisdiction to deal with a properly served Notice under the Trespass Act.
9. Mr Neal’s view was that the Committee did not have jurisdiction and the Rules of Racing could not be in conflict with any Act or the general law of New Zealand.
10. Mr Bioletti for his part focused on the conflict between the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence and the effect of the Trespass Notice. He referred to Mr Vince’s Affidavit and to Mr Vince’s obligations as a Trainer and the need to be present when his horses were racing.
In the subsequent discussion it was noted that Trainers from time to time send Stable Representatives to look after horses at the Races and Mr Neal did not think it was essential for Mr Vince to be present on Race Night.
11. The Chairman then questioned Mr Neal as to whether the RIU had proper authority from the Auckland Trotting Club to serve the Trespass Notice. Mr Neal confirmed that it did have and he undertook to provide evidence of that.
12. The parties were then asked by the Committee to file submissions by 5.00pm on Wednesday the 27th of August 2014 and in those submissions they were asked to address the question of jurisdiction.
Submissions for Applicant
13. Mr Bioletti filed the following submissions:
(i) The Auckland Trotting Club is a club registered under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(ii) Mr Timothy Vince is a person Licenced to train by the Board of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(iii) His Licence is valid and current.
(iv) Pursuant to his Licence Mr Vince is authorized to attend all Harness Racing New Zealand Race Meetings.
(v) Mr Vince has a horse KDCOMMANDO entered at Alexandra Park this Friday 29 August 2014.
(vi) As the Trainer of this horse Mr Vince has obligations under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. This Race is under the auspices of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(vii) Mr Vince has applied to the Judicial Control Authority for a Non Defendant Ruling as to whether he can attend this Meeting as a Licenced Trainer.
(viii) Pursuant to Rule 102(1) of the Harness Racing Rules both the Club and Mr Vince are subject to these Rules.
(ix) Pursuant to Rule 301 the Board is charged with the duties of controlling and supervising the conduct of all Licenced persons and other persons coming within its jurisdiction.
(x) Pursuant to Rule 1102(1) the Judicial Committee has jurisdiction to hear and determine all proceedings pursuant to the Rules. This includes (b)(viii) all matters submitted to it for a Ruling under these Rules.
(xi) Under Rule 1112 the Committee may rule on any matter referred to in any Information and its ruling is binding on all persons to whom the Rules apply.
(xii) The effect of the Trespass Notice issued to Mr Vince is to cause a de facto suspension or disqualification of his rights and duties under his Trainer’s Licence without any due process accorded under the Harness Racing Rules to persons whose Trainer’s Licence is suspended.
(xiii) Mr Vince seeks a Ruling that the issuing of the Trespass Notice to him by the Auckland Trotting Club as a Licenced Trainer is contrary to the Harness Racing Rules.
Submissions for Respondent
14. Mr CJ Lange as Counsel for the Respondent filed the following submissions:
(i) The issue of trespass is a matter between the occupier of the land and the individual who is trespassed. In the circumstances of the present matter, that is the ATC and associated entities and Mr Vince.
(ii) A Judicial Committee does not have any jurisdiction in relation to determining the validity of any trespass notice or determining whether any trespass takes place.
The Racing Act
(iii) Section 31 of the Racing Act precludes the Racing Rules from being in conflict with the provisions of any enactment or the general law of New Zealand. Accordingly, the Trespass Act has supremacy over the Rules. It is submitted that there is no provision within the Rules which is in conflict with the Racing Act, however if that was the case, those Rules would be invalid under s31(1) of the Racing Act 2003.
(iv) The Racing Act contemplates that Rules may be made for controlling or prohibiting admission of persons to a Racecourse. Section 34(2) of the Act expressly states that power is subject to any other enactment and the general law of New Zealand. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for a code to have a Rule which in effect overruled the provisions of the Trespass Act and the rights provided to occupiers to exclude persons from land occupied by them.
(v) The Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction and powers are derived from the Racing Act and the Rules. Section 39 of the Racing Act expresses the functions of the Judicial Committee as including to hear, adjudicate on, and determine any matter that is brought before it in accordance with the Code’s Racing Rules.
(vi) There are a number of jurisdictional issues with the request for a Ruling which has been filed.
(vii) Firstly, the Judicial Committee jurisdiction does not arise until one hour prior to the advertised starting time of the first Race of the Race Meeting (Rule 1102(2)(a) and a Non-Race Day Information may only be filed by a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector (Rule 1103(4)(c).
(viii) The more substantive issue relating to trespass does not arise under the Rules, but arises under the Trespass Act 1980.
(ix) Rule 1102(2)(b)(vii) gives the Committee jurisdiction to consider and determine matters connected with Racing, including any dispute concerning the exercised or proposed exercise by the Stewards, a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector of any of their powers, duties or functions under the Rules. It is noted that the issue of trespass is not a matter concerning the exercise of Stewards, Stipendiary Stewards or Racecourse Inspectors powers under the Rules, but rather is an issue between the occupier and the trespassed person.
(x) For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that a Judicial Committee does not have jurisdiction to hear the Application on procedural grounds or on substantive grounds.
(xi) The matter of trespass arises between the occupier and Mr Vince. It is not the function of a Steward or suspect to provide evidence that the Trespass Notice is properly made out or to comment on the occupiers or the occupier’s view on a good behaviour bond.
(xii) Any question of the legality of the Trespass Notice is a matter for the Court to determine, not a Racing Judicial Body.
(xiii) The extent to which the Rules permit Mr Vince to be present at Race Meetings under the Rules is subject to the provisions of any enactments, including the Trespass Act, the latter having supremacy over the former.
Findings
15. The Raceday Judicial Committee appears to have acted under Rule 1103(4)(a)(iv) which provides:
“that during a Race Meeting an Information may be filed by any person with the leave of the Judicial Committee. This is in addition to those persons specified in Rule 1103(4)(a)(i, ii, and iii)”.
This Committee assumes that the Raceday Committee gave leave for Mr Vince to file the Information for his Request for a Ruling.
16. As stated above, this Committee at the outset has concerns as to whether it has jurisdiction to deal with a Trespass Notice. The parties were given an opportunity to convince us as to whether we have jurisdiction or not.
17. Mr Lange’s submissions are compelling. The Committee is well aware of the provision of s31 of the Racing Act 2003 which states that Racing Rules must not conflict with any Act or general law. That is very clear.
18. Mr Bioletti has pointed to the apparent conflict between the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence and the Trespass Notice issued under the Trespass Act.
19. It is very clear that the terms of any Licence issued by Harness Racing New Zealand cannot be in conflict with any Act which in this case is the Trespass Act.
20. Mr Lange has also pointed out to us that the matter of trespass is between the Auckland Trotting Club and Mr Vince. That is a question of fact.
21. This Committee finds that it does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the Trespass Notice served on Mr Vince and accordingly the Information is dismissed.
BJ Scott GR Jones
Chairman Committee Member
28 August 2014
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 28/08/2014
Publish Date: 28/08/2014
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: 18612a0c9516a836d23056d6fd96846b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 28/08/2014
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - Request for Ruling - Decision dated 28 August 2014
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN TIMOTHY ROBIN VINCE – Applicant – Licenced Trainer
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT - Respondent
Information: A4215
REQUEST FOR A RULING
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott (Chairman) – GR Jones (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr J N Bioletti for the Applicant, Mr R Neal for the Respondent
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mr Timothy Vince is a Licenced Trainer who up until the 1st of August 2014 had leased training facilities at Alexandra Park. On the 15th of August 2014 Mr Vince was served with a Trespass Notice banning him from entry to Alexandra Park for a period of two years from that date.
2. Mr Vince lodged an Information with the Judicial Committee at Harness Waikato’s Meeting on the 21st of August 2014. That Information was a Request for a Ruling and that Request was “That having been trespassed from Alexandra Park I need a Ruling regarding when I enter and accept with a horse I train at that venue how I stand under the Rules whether I can be there to attend the horse under my obligation as a Trainer”.
3. The Judicial Committee of the night accepted the Information Requesting a Ruling from Mr Vince and although the deposit is referred to on the Information it would appear that Mr Vince was not asked to pay it.
4. The Judicial Committee then opened the Hearing and then adjourned it to a time and place to be set by the Executive Office of the JCA.
5. A telephone conference between Mr Bioletti, Mr Neal and this Committee was set for the 26th of August 2014.
6. Prior to that telephone conference Mr Bioletti filed with the JCA an Affidavit from Mr Vince in support of his Request for a Ruling. The Affidavit in essence advised the Committee of the dispute that lead to Mr Vince being served with a Trespass Notice and his efforts to mediate any dispute. It also traversed his history in Harness Racing and the effect that the Trespass Notice would have on him in terms of his racing horses at Alexandra Park. The Affidavit also suggested that the Trespass Notice contravenes the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence to Train which Licence admits him to any Harness Racing Meeting in New Zealand.
7. At the telephone conference on the 26th of August Mr Bioletti confirmed that he was acting for Mr Vince and Mr Neal appeared for the RIU. Due to the need to expedite this matter it was agreed that it could be heard “on the papers”.
8. At the outset of the telephone conference the Chairman raised with the parties the Committee’s concerns about it having jurisdiction to deal with a properly served Notice under the Trespass Act.
9. Mr Neal’s view was that the Committee did not have jurisdiction and the Rules of Racing could not be in conflict with any Act or the general law of New Zealand.
10. Mr Bioletti for his part focused on the conflict between the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence and the effect of the Trespass Notice. He referred to Mr Vince’s Affidavit and to Mr Vince’s obligations as a Trainer and the need to be present when his horses were racing.
In the subsequent discussion it was noted that Trainers from time to time send Stable Representatives to look after horses at the Races and Mr Neal did not think it was essential for Mr Vince to be present on Race Night.
11. The Chairman then questioned Mr Neal as to whether the RIU had proper authority from the Auckland Trotting Club to serve the Trespass Notice. Mr Neal confirmed that it did have and he undertook to provide evidence of that.
12. The parties were then asked by the Committee to file submissions by 5.00pm on Wednesday the 27th of August 2014 and in those submissions they were asked to address the question of jurisdiction.
Submissions for Applicant
13. Mr Bioletti filed the following submissions:
(i) The Auckland Trotting Club is a club registered under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(ii) Mr Timothy Vince is a person Licenced to train by the Board of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(iii) His Licence is valid and current.
(iv) Pursuant to his Licence Mr Vince is authorized to attend all Harness Racing New Zealand Race Meetings.
(v) Mr Vince has a horse KDCOMMANDO entered at Alexandra Park this Friday 29 August 2014.
(vi) As the Trainer of this horse Mr Vince has obligations under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. This Race is under the auspices of Harness Racing New Zealand.
(vii) Mr Vince has applied to the Judicial Control Authority for a Non Defendant Ruling as to whether he can attend this Meeting as a Licenced Trainer.
(viii) Pursuant to Rule 102(1) of the Harness Racing Rules both the Club and Mr Vince are subject to these Rules.
(ix) Pursuant to Rule 301 the Board is charged with the duties of controlling and supervising the conduct of all Licenced persons and other persons coming within its jurisdiction.
(x) Pursuant to Rule 1102(1) the Judicial Committee has jurisdiction to hear and determine all proceedings pursuant to the Rules. This includes (b)(viii) all matters submitted to it for a Ruling under these Rules.
(xi) Under Rule 1112 the Committee may rule on any matter referred to in any Information and its ruling is binding on all persons to whom the Rules apply.
(xii) The effect of the Trespass Notice issued to Mr Vince is to cause a de facto suspension or disqualification of his rights and duties under his Trainer’s Licence without any due process accorded under the Harness Racing Rules to persons whose Trainer’s Licence is suspended.
(xiii) Mr Vince seeks a Ruling that the issuing of the Trespass Notice to him by the Auckland Trotting Club as a Licenced Trainer is contrary to the Harness Racing Rules.
Submissions for Respondent
14. Mr CJ Lange as Counsel for the Respondent filed the following submissions:
(i) The issue of trespass is a matter between the occupier of the land and the individual who is trespassed. In the circumstances of the present matter, that is the ATC and associated entities and Mr Vince.
(ii) A Judicial Committee does not have any jurisdiction in relation to determining the validity of any trespass notice or determining whether any trespass takes place.
The Racing Act
(iii) Section 31 of the Racing Act precludes the Racing Rules from being in conflict with the provisions of any enactment or the general law of New Zealand. Accordingly, the Trespass Act has supremacy over the Rules. It is submitted that there is no provision within the Rules which is in conflict with the Racing Act, however if that was the case, those Rules would be invalid under s31(1) of the Racing Act 2003.
(iv) The Racing Act contemplates that Rules may be made for controlling or prohibiting admission of persons to a Racecourse. Section 34(2) of the Act expressly states that power is subject to any other enactment and the general law of New Zealand. Accordingly, it would not be permissible for a code to have a Rule which in effect overruled the provisions of the Trespass Act and the rights provided to occupiers to exclude persons from land occupied by them.
(v) The Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction and powers are derived from the Racing Act and the Rules. Section 39 of the Racing Act expresses the functions of the Judicial Committee as including to hear, adjudicate on, and determine any matter that is brought before it in accordance with the Code’s Racing Rules.
(vi) There are a number of jurisdictional issues with the request for a Ruling which has been filed.
(vii) Firstly, the Judicial Committee jurisdiction does not arise until one hour prior to the advertised starting time of the first Race of the Race Meeting (Rule 1102(2)(a) and a Non-Race Day Information may only be filed by a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector (Rule 1103(4)(c).
(viii) The more substantive issue relating to trespass does not arise under the Rules, but arises under the Trespass Act 1980.
(ix) Rule 1102(2)(b)(vii) gives the Committee jurisdiction to consider and determine matters connected with Racing, including any dispute concerning the exercised or proposed exercise by the Stewards, a Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector of any of their powers, duties or functions under the Rules. It is noted that the issue of trespass is not a matter concerning the exercise of Stewards, Stipendiary Stewards or Racecourse Inspectors powers under the Rules, but rather is an issue between the occupier and the trespassed person.
(x) For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that a Judicial Committee does not have jurisdiction to hear the Application on procedural grounds or on substantive grounds.
(xi) The matter of trespass arises between the occupier and Mr Vince. It is not the function of a Steward or suspect to provide evidence that the Trespass Notice is properly made out or to comment on the occupiers or the occupier’s view on a good behaviour bond.
(xii) Any question of the legality of the Trespass Notice is a matter for the Court to determine, not a Racing Judicial Body.
(xiii) The extent to which the Rules permit Mr Vince to be present at Race Meetings under the Rules is subject to the provisions of any enactments, including the Trespass Act, the latter having supremacy over the former.
Findings
15. The Raceday Judicial Committee appears to have acted under Rule 1103(4)(a)(iv) which provides:
“that during a Race Meeting an Information may be filed by any person with the leave of the Judicial Committee. This is in addition to those persons specified in Rule 1103(4)(a)(i, ii, and iii)”.
This Committee assumes that the Raceday Committee gave leave for Mr Vince to file the Information for his Request for a Ruling.
16. As stated above, this Committee at the outset has concerns as to whether it has jurisdiction to deal with a Trespass Notice. The parties were given an opportunity to convince us as to whether we have jurisdiction or not.
17. Mr Lange’s submissions are compelling. The Committee is well aware of the provision of s31 of the Racing Act 2003 which states that Racing Rules must not conflict with any Act or general law. That is very clear.
18. Mr Bioletti has pointed to the apparent conflict between the terms of Mr Vince’s Licence and the Trespass Notice issued under the Trespass Act.
19. It is very clear that the terms of any Licence issued by Harness Racing New Zealand cannot be in conflict with any Act which in this case is the Trespass Act.
20. Mr Lange has also pointed out to us that the matter of trespass is between the Auckland Trotting Club and Mr Vince. That is a question of fact.
21. This Committee finds that it does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the Trespass Notice served on Mr Vince and accordingly the Information is dismissed.
BJ Scott GR Jones
Chairman Committee Member
28 August 2014
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: