Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Craik – Decision as to Penalty and Costs dated 26 May 2015

hearingid: 1e5f77b871ea25510cba195b8f7e6aae

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 27/05/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v B Craik - Decision as to Penalty and Costs dated 26 May 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

AT AUCKLAND

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Informant

AND MRS BARBARA CRAIK

Respondent

DECISION AS TO PENALTY AND COSTS

1. Introduction

1.1 At the conclusion of our substantive decision in this matter we requested that the parties make written submissions as to penalty and costs. This was on the basis that the Informant’s submissions were to be presented first, followed by the Defendants.

1.2 The written submissions have now been received from the Informant.

1.3 The Respondent elected not to provide submissions as to penalty.

2. Submissions by Mr Neal

2.1 In their decision dated 5th May 2015 the Judicial Committee found that the Respondent, Mrs Barbara Craik, had breached the provisions of Rule 68.1 of the Rules of Greyhound Racing.

2.2 The Committee has invited written submissions with respect to penalty and costs and the Informant now so makes such submissions.

2.3 Firstly with regard to the Respondent’s record this demonstrates no prior offending under this Rule, or its predecessor Rule 88.1.o.

2.4 Secondly; the Craik kennels have, in the racing season to date, started 36 individual greyhounds for a combined number of 636 starts.

2.5 With respect to this offence the Informant submits that an aggravating factor is that as a consequence of the error made by Mrs Craik on the 8th February 2015, the greyhound DON DRAPER started in race five instead of the greyhound LUCKY MAN and as such the potential for serious harm to the reputation of greyhound industry existed. Thankfully the greyhound was unplaced but nonetheless the error was one of which could have proved catastrophic for the image of greyhound racing.

2.6 The Informant respectfully submits that this matter could be dealt with by way of a fine and that as such this should be in the range of $400.00 - $500.00.

2.7 In making this submission the Committee are referred to the following cases which all relate to matters where the incorrect greyhound was presented.

Dec 2013 – RIU vs. S $350.00

In this matter related to ‘S’ presented the wrong greyhound to race and the RIU submitted that a fine in the range of $300.00 - $400.00 was appropriate (admitted breach). The Judicial Committee stated in their ‘Reasons for Penalty’ “the principal mitigating factors are Mr S’s admission of the breach and his previous good record”.

Jan 2014 – RIU vs Mc $425.00

This matter similarly involved presentation of an incorrect greyhound and in this case the RIU submitted that a fine in the range of $400.00 - $500.00 was appropriate (admitted breach).

Sept 2013 – RIU vs R $350.00

Like the previously referred to cases, this matter also related to incorrect presentation with the RIU submitting (following an admission) that a penalty of $350.00 was appropriate. In their decision the Committee stated “His very frank admission of the breach and his previous clear record, the Committee took into account as mitigating factors”.

Feb 2015 – RIU vs R $550.00 (2nd offence)

This matter involved ‘R’ incorrectly presenting a greyhound for a second time in a short period. And again while being an admitted breach the Committee stated “His very frank admission of the breach although inevitable, the Committee took into account as a mitigating factor”.

2.8 All of the above the matters were admitted breaches, and in all but one the Judicial Committee recognized this factor and placed appropriate weight when promulgating penalty.

2.9 It is submitted that no such concessions should be afforded the Respondent in this case as there has been no acceptance of error.

2.10 It is recognized that the Craiks operate a large kennel however, and in consequence, with running a large team there comes the need to maintain high standards of professionalism and in this case these have not been achieved.

2.11 Taking all matters into consideration the Informant submits that the penalty range suggested recognizes the seriousness of the matter and the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing.

3. Reasons for Penalty

3.1 The Committee has considered the submissions of the Informant. It is unfortunate that the Respondent has elected not to file submissions as to penalty but that is the Respondent’s choice.

3.2 The facts of this case were very clear as far as we were concerned and quite clearly Mrs Craik presented the wrong greyhound and should have known it was the wrong one. She is a very experienced handler and would know her greyhounds.

This is emphasized by the fact that when Mr and Mrs Craik’s daughter went to the greyhound trailer on race day with Mr Van Kan she immediately recognized DON DRAPER.

3.3 This was an error by Mrs Craik but an error that a very experienced handler should not have made. This is an aggravating factor as far as we are concerned as is the fact that this lead to the late scratching of the second greyhound out of race 8.

3.4 A further aggravating factor is that the scratching of the second greyhound would have caused a financial loss to the Club and, no doubt, inconvenience to members of the betting public. We were not told who the Owner of DON DRAPER is but that Owner was deprived of the opportunity to earn stake money because it was presented for the wrong race.

3.5 A further aggravating factor is that the scratching of the greyhound from race 8 and the disqualification of the greyhound from race 5 impacts on the integrity and professionalism of Greyhound Racing.

3.6 Mr Neal has referred, in his submissions, to four previous decisions. We were not provided with copies of those decisions but rather a highlighted point from each of them. Mr Neal told us that these were all admitted breaches and that factor was taken into account in the calculation of the penalty for each decision. This is not available to us here.

3.7 A further aggravating factor is that at the Hearing, Mr Craik firstly tried to suggest that Rule 68.1 did not apply in this situation (we rejected that completely) and secondly he tried to place the responsibility for the error on the Officials rather than Mrs Craik. We also rejected that completely and we were concerned at his attitude in this regard.

Rule 68.1 is a positive Rule which places a positive obligation on the Handler of a greyhound by the words “shall produce the correct greyhound”. The words could not be any clearer and to suggest that there is an obligation on the Officials is at the very best misleading.

3.8 The only mitigating factor that we can find is that Mrs Craik has a very good record as far as this Rule is concerned on the basis that as a very experienced handler she has presented many greyhounds for racing.

3.9 In arriving at penalty we have taken into account the penalty submissions from Mr Neal on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit and also the previous cases referred to by him.

3.10 In arriving at penalty we have also had regard to the well-established general purposes of sentencing which are (a) to hold the offender accountable for his/her actions, (b) to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, (c) to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence.

This Committee has also had regard to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.

4. Penalty

4.1 This Committee imposes a fine of $475.00 on Mrs Craik.

5. Costs

5.1 Mr Neal did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit.

5.2 In addition, Mrs Craik is ordered to pay the sum of $350.00 by way of contribution to the costs of the JCA.

BJ Scott                  AJ Dooley

Chairman              Committee Member

26 May 2015

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: