Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v RD Blackburn – Decision dated 1 May 2015
ID: JCA12088
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. A1095
BETWEEN S W WALLIS
Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND ROSEMARY D. BLACKBURN of Amberley, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman - Mr P T Knowles, Committee Member
Present: Mr S W Wallis, the Informant
Mrs R D Blackburn, the Respondent
Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, Registrar
Date of Hearing: 1 May 2015
Date of Oral Decision: 1 May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A1095 alleges that, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on Friday, 10th April 2015, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 87.1.o in that, as the trainer of the greyhounds, LUMINARY and ELWOOD SENSATION, she was “negligent by failing to produce both LUMINARY (Race 7) and ELWOOD SENSATION (Race 9) for the purpose of racing, resulting in both runners being declared late scratchings”.
[2] Mr Wallis produced an e-mail from Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the information pursuant to Rule 91.2 a.
[3] The information was served on the Respondent on 17th April 2015. She completed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that she admitted the breach of the Rule.
[4] Ms Blackburn was present at the hearing of the information and, following the reading of the charge and Rule to her, she confirmed that she admitted the charge.
[5] The charge was found proved accordingly.
The Rule
[6] Rule 87.1 provides as follows:
Any person (including an official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
The Facts
[7] Mr Wallis presented the following written Summary of Facts:
1. On Friday, 10th April 2015, the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Races 7 and 9 were the Clarkson Sign Studio Stakes run over 520 metres for dogs assessed at C1 and the Kolorful Kanvas Stakes also run over 520 metres for dogs assessed at C2.
3. Dog number 6 in Race 7 was shown as LUMINARY and dog number 4 in Race 9 was shown as ELWOOD SENSATION. Both dogs are trained by licensed Public Trainer, Rosemary Blackburn.
4. During the allocated kennelling time for Races 1 to 7, which was between 10.01am and 11.01am, and the optional kennelling for Races 8 to 10 were between 12.10 and 12.20 [sic].
5. At 11.01 Mrs Blackburn had failed to produce LUMINARY for kennelling. ELWOOD SENSATION was not required to be kennelled until the second kennelling between 12.10 and 12.20.
6. Mr Wallis inspected the car park to ascertain whether Mrs Blackburn had arrived on course. Her van was not present in the car park.
7. Mrs Blackburn was then phoned at 11.20 asking where she was.
8. Mrs Blackburn stated she didn’t believe she had any dogs racing on the day.
9. Mrs Blackburn was informed that she had both LUMINARY accepted in Race 7 and ELWOOD SENSATION accepted in Race 9. Her response was she had just galloped both dogs that morning and due to this would not be able to bring the dogs in to race due to welfare issues.
10. Stewards then ordered the scratching of both dogs at 11.24am with Raceday Control.
11. Reserve dogs GOLDSTAR BOMBER (Race 7) and ZULU CHANEL (Race 9) were not accepted in any other race so missed a start.
[8] Mrs Blackburn confirmed to the Committee that she accepted that the facts were as presented by Mr Wallis.
Submissions of Respondent
[9] Mrs Blackburn told the Committee that she gets printouts for herself of the fields and keeps them on her bench. She had three sets of fields, with a Friday on the top. She did not look at the date, she said, and did not realise that it was the fields for the previous Friday, 3rd April, when she had no dogs racing. Therefore, when she looked at the fields, she thought that she had no dogs racing on 10th April. She had entered the dogs but, when they did not appear in the fields, she thought that they had not gained starts. She does not discard the printed fields, she said, because she uses them later to write on. She was “horrified” to receive the telephone call from Mr Wallis.
[10] She would have had time to bring ELWOOD SENSATION to race but she had galloped the dog that morning and, therefore, felt that she should not race it over 520 metres the same day.
[11] She frankly admitted that she had made a mistake and that it was entirely her own fault.
Penalty Submissions of the Informant
[12] Mr Wallis presented the following Penalty Submissions in writing:
1. Mrs Blackburn has been a Public Trainer since 2004. Before that, she had held a licence for many years with her husband, Mr Ron Blackburn (Mrs Blackburn said that she had trained in partnership from 1981).
2. She has a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this Rule.
3. She has started 17 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 206 in the current 2014/2015 season, up to 13th April 2015. She started 25 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 385.
4. Mrs Blackburn admitted fault in this situation immediately. She has been very cooperative throughout the investigation and has conducted herself in a very professional manner.
5. Mrs Blackburn failed to present both LUMINARY and ELWOOD SENSATION to race in an official race resulting in both dogs being declared late scratchings. This affects the turnover for both races which affects the Club and also disrupts punters who have already invested on both races.
6. It has also cost trainers, Messrs McInerney and Roberts, starts with their respective dogs as reserves.
7. Similar breaches of this Rule in Greyhound Racing have brought about the following penalties:
Evans (April 2015) – failed to bring dog to the races for the purpose of racing – fined $300.
8. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
9. We submit that although this had had twice the impact for the affected parties due to there being two dogs involved this has only occurred due to the one mistake by Mrs Blackburn. That being said, the RIU submits that Mrs Blackburn be fined the same amount as Mr Evans – that of $300.
Penalty Submissions of the Respondent
[13] Mrs Blackburn said that this is the first occasion on which she has made such a mistake and what happened was “purely accidental”. It should never have happened and she has taken measures to ensure that it does not happen again, she said.
[14] She submitted that, leading up to this breach, she has had a very stressful few months. (She gave details of greyhounds trained by her that have sustained injuries while racing at Addington). She submitted that this may have contributed to her making this mistake.
[15] It was an error on her part and she did not wish to make excuses, she said.
Reasons for Decision
[16] In determining penalty, the Committee adopted, as a starting point, the penalty of a $300 fine in the Evans case.
[17] In that case, the trainers had 13 greyhounds to be taken to the race meeting but one was left at home when a check prior to departing for the meeting revealed that there was only one vacant stall on the bottom level of the bus, whereas there were actually two vacant stalls, resulting in only 12 dogs being taken to the meeting. The trainers had a good record and admitted the breach.
[18] In arriving at penalty in the Evans case, the Committee in that case looked at a number of cases in which the wrong dog was presented to race and held that the degree of negligence in failing to take a dog to the races in that case was not as high as taking a wrong dog. Whatever the case, it is clearly negligent for a trainer to either take the wrong dog or, as in the present case, to fail to take a dog or dogs to the race meeting.
[19] Mr Wallis submitted that this breach had come about as the result of a single mistake by Mrs Blackburn. Whilst we can find some merit in that submission, it is clear that, involving as it did two greyhounds, the consequences are that much greater, if not having exactly twice the impact.
[20] When comparing the present case with the Evans case, this is a factor that we have taken into account.
[21] A further aggravating factor, that was not present in the Evans case, is that in the case of each late scratching a reserve dog in each race had been denied a start. This has an impact on the connections of those dogs as well as the Club which, it is reasonable to assume, would have a suffered a reduction in turnover on the two races as a result of having two 7-dog fields and having to refund investments on the two late scratchings.
[22] Thus, taking the Evans case as a starting point as we earlier stated, we believe that the penalty in the present case needs to be uplifted from the $300 for those additional aggravating factors. We record that the starting point of $300 takes into account Mrs Blackburn’s excellent record, her early admission of the breach and her cooperation with the Racing Integrity Unit in relation to the charge.
[23] The Committee has set that uplift figure at $100.
[24] The Committee is satisfied that a fine of $400 will suffice to satisfy the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for her actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence.
Penalty
[25] Mrs Blackburn is fined the sum of $400.
Costs
[26] No order is made as to costs.
R G McKENZIE P T KNOWLES
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 06/05/2015
Publish Date: 06/05/2015
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: 2f9d76662d97bc626f004a7314d006db
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 06/05/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v RD Blackburn - Decision dated 1 May 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. A1095
BETWEEN S W WALLIS
Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND ROSEMARY D. BLACKBURN of Amberley, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman - Mr P T Knowles, Committee Member
Present: Mr S W Wallis, the Informant
Mrs R D Blackburn, the Respondent
Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, Registrar
Date of Hearing: 1 May 2015
Date of Oral Decision: 1 May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A1095 alleges that, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on Friday, 10th April 2015, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 87.1.o in that, as the trainer of the greyhounds, LUMINARY and ELWOOD SENSATION, she was “negligent by failing to produce both LUMINARY (Race 7) and ELWOOD SENSATION (Race 9) for the purpose of racing, resulting in both runners being declared late scratchings”.
[2] Mr Wallis produced an e-mail from Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the information pursuant to Rule 91.2 a.
[3] The information was served on the Respondent on 17th April 2015. She completed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that she admitted the breach of the Rule.
[4] Ms Blackburn was present at the hearing of the information and, following the reading of the charge and Rule to her, she confirmed that she admitted the charge.
[5] The charge was found proved accordingly.
The Rule
[6] Rule 87.1 provides as follows:
Any person (including an official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
The Facts
[7] Mr Wallis presented the following written Summary of Facts:
1. On Friday, 10th April 2015, the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Races 7 and 9 were the Clarkson Sign Studio Stakes run over 520 metres for dogs assessed at C1 and the Kolorful Kanvas Stakes also run over 520 metres for dogs assessed at C2.
3. Dog number 6 in Race 7 was shown as LUMINARY and dog number 4 in Race 9 was shown as ELWOOD SENSATION. Both dogs are trained by licensed Public Trainer, Rosemary Blackburn.
4. During the allocated kennelling time for Races 1 to 7, which was between 10.01am and 11.01am, and the optional kennelling for Races 8 to 10 were between 12.10 and 12.20 [sic].
5. At 11.01 Mrs Blackburn had failed to produce LUMINARY for kennelling. ELWOOD SENSATION was not required to be kennelled until the second kennelling between 12.10 and 12.20.
6. Mr Wallis inspected the car park to ascertain whether Mrs Blackburn had arrived on course. Her van was not present in the car park.
7. Mrs Blackburn was then phoned at 11.20 asking where she was.
8. Mrs Blackburn stated she didn’t believe she had any dogs racing on the day.
9. Mrs Blackburn was informed that she had both LUMINARY accepted in Race 7 and ELWOOD SENSATION accepted in Race 9. Her response was she had just galloped both dogs that morning and due to this would not be able to bring the dogs in to race due to welfare issues.
10. Stewards then ordered the scratching of both dogs at 11.24am with Raceday Control.
11. Reserve dogs GOLDSTAR BOMBER (Race 7) and ZULU CHANEL (Race 9) were not accepted in any other race so missed a start.
[8] Mrs Blackburn confirmed to the Committee that she accepted that the facts were as presented by Mr Wallis.
Submissions of Respondent
[9] Mrs Blackburn told the Committee that she gets printouts for herself of the fields and keeps them on her bench. She had three sets of fields, with a Friday on the top. She did not look at the date, she said, and did not realise that it was the fields for the previous Friday, 3rd April, when she had no dogs racing. Therefore, when she looked at the fields, she thought that she had no dogs racing on 10th April. She had entered the dogs but, when they did not appear in the fields, she thought that they had not gained starts. She does not discard the printed fields, she said, because she uses them later to write on. She was “horrified” to receive the telephone call from Mr Wallis.
[10] She would have had time to bring ELWOOD SENSATION to race but she had galloped the dog that morning and, therefore, felt that she should not race it over 520 metres the same day.
[11] She frankly admitted that she had made a mistake and that it was entirely her own fault.
Penalty Submissions of the Informant
[12] Mr Wallis presented the following Penalty Submissions in writing:
1. Mrs Blackburn has been a Public Trainer since 2004. Before that, she had held a licence for many years with her husband, Mr Ron Blackburn (Mrs Blackburn said that she had trained in partnership from 1981).
2. She has a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this Rule.
3. She has started 17 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 206 in the current 2014/2015 season, up to 13th April 2015. She started 25 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 385.
4. Mrs Blackburn admitted fault in this situation immediately. She has been very cooperative throughout the investigation and has conducted herself in a very professional manner.
5. Mrs Blackburn failed to present both LUMINARY and ELWOOD SENSATION to race in an official race resulting in both dogs being declared late scratchings. This affects the turnover for both races which affects the Club and also disrupts punters who have already invested on both races.
6. It has also cost trainers, Messrs McInerney and Roberts, starts with their respective dogs as reserves.
7. Similar breaches of this Rule in Greyhound Racing have brought about the following penalties:
Evans (April 2015) – failed to bring dog to the races for the purpose of racing – fined $300.
8. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
9. We submit that although this had had twice the impact for the affected parties due to there being two dogs involved this has only occurred due to the one mistake by Mrs Blackburn. That being said, the RIU submits that Mrs Blackburn be fined the same amount as Mr Evans – that of $300.
Penalty Submissions of the Respondent
[13] Mrs Blackburn said that this is the first occasion on which she has made such a mistake and what happened was “purely accidental”. It should never have happened and she has taken measures to ensure that it does not happen again, she said.
[14] She submitted that, leading up to this breach, she has had a very stressful few months. (She gave details of greyhounds trained by her that have sustained injuries while racing at Addington). She submitted that this may have contributed to her making this mistake.
[15] It was an error on her part and she did not wish to make excuses, she said.
Reasons for Decision
[16] In determining penalty, the Committee adopted, as a starting point, the penalty of a $300 fine in the Evans case.
[17] In that case, the trainers had 13 greyhounds to be taken to the race meeting but one was left at home when a check prior to departing for the meeting revealed that there was only one vacant stall on the bottom level of the bus, whereas there were actually two vacant stalls, resulting in only 12 dogs being taken to the meeting. The trainers had a good record and admitted the breach.
[18] In arriving at penalty in the Evans case, the Committee in that case looked at a number of cases in which the wrong dog was presented to race and held that the degree of negligence in failing to take a dog to the races in that case was not as high as taking a wrong dog. Whatever the case, it is clearly negligent for a trainer to either take the wrong dog or, as in the present case, to fail to take a dog or dogs to the race meeting.
[19] Mr Wallis submitted that this breach had come about as the result of a single mistake by Mrs Blackburn. Whilst we can find some merit in that submission, it is clear that, involving as it did two greyhounds, the consequences are that much greater, if not having exactly twice the impact.
[20] When comparing the present case with the Evans case, this is a factor that we have taken into account.
[21] A further aggravating factor, that was not present in the Evans case, is that in the case of each late scratching a reserve dog in each race had been denied a start. This has an impact on the connections of those dogs as well as the Club which, it is reasonable to assume, would have a suffered a reduction in turnover on the two races as a result of having two 7-dog fields and having to refund investments on the two late scratchings.
[22] Thus, taking the Evans case as a starting point as we earlier stated, we believe that the penalty in the present case needs to be uplifted from the $300 for those additional aggravating factors. We record that the starting point of $300 takes into account Mrs Blackburn’s excellent record, her early admission of the breach and her cooperation with the Racing Integrity Unit in relation to the charge.
[23] The Committee has set that uplift figure at $100.
[24] The Committee is satisfied that a fine of $400 will suffice to satisfy the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for her actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence.
Penalty
[25] Mrs Blackburn is fined the sum of $400.
Costs
[26] No order is made as to costs.
R G McKENZIE P T KNOWLES
Chairman 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: