Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Hamilton – Decision dated 11 July 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA12440
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MURRAY HAMILTON, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A6630 & 6632
COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr P Knowles, Member
DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 11 July 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr C Allison, Racecourse Investigator, on behalf of his employer, the RIU, has charged Mr M Hamilton, Licensed Trainer (Class A) with two breaches of r 340 of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing.
[2] The first charge (information no. A6630) is that on 5 February last he rang Mr Neville Armstrong, the Secretary of the Central Otago Equestrian Club, and used abusive and offensive language.
[3] The second charge (information no. A6632) is that between 22 and 26 April 2016, being a class A trainer, Mr Hamilton did misconduct himself by writing or cause to be written “Sinnamon is a w**k*r” on two racecourse signs.
[4] Mr Hamilton has been licensed with NZTR since 2003. Prior to being issued a licence with NZTR Mr Hamilton had been licensed in the Harness Racing industry since 1972.
[5] Mr Hamilton is 67 years old and resides in Omakau.
[6] Rule 340 of the Rules of Racing states:
A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or any other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.
[7] The penalty provisions which apply in this case are found in r 803, which states:
(1) A person who commits, or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/ or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/ or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.
[8] Mr Allison produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 903(2)(d). The letter was dated 7 June 2016.
[9] A telephone conference was held on 6 July during which Mr Hamilton stated that he admitted the breach and wanted the matter to be heard on the papers. The informant did not object to our adopting this course of action, which we accept is appropriate in the circumstances. We have received a summary of facts from Mr Allison, which Mr Hamilton accepts is accurate. We have also received written submissions from Mr Allison as to penalty and have had the benefit of an oral response to these from Mr Hamilton.
Facts
[10] The facts may be stated briefly.
[11] On 4 February 2016 Mr Hamilton was sent a letter from the Central Otago Equestrian Club warning him to return fencing equipment after Mr Hamilton had staff members alter some fencing in paddocks where Mr Hamilton’s horses were based on the Omakau Racecourse. It further advised if the conditions imposed in the letter were not met, the Club would look at further action.
[12] Mr Hamilton did not agree with the contents of the letter. At about 10.48am on 5 February Mr Hamilton rung Mr Armstrong the Secretary of the Central Otago Equestrian Club to discuss the letter.
[13] During the conversation, which lasted approximately 16 minutes, Mr Hamilton became agitated and commenced to abuse Mr Armstrong and to use obscene language. Mr Hamilton during the course of the conversation used the following words and phrases with respect to Mr Armstrong: “his being a c**t”, “he’d be a c**t of a boss”, “no bastard liked him”, “everybody hated him and he was just a c** of a person and a f**ing idiot”, “He was a f**ing idiot and he should f*** off”’, “f*** off and give his brother a go”.
[14] In March 2016 Mr Hamilton arranged for a local contractor to undertake work on the main thoroughbred grass track. This work was completed without any consultation with or the knowledge of the Central Otago Equestrian Club. As a result of this work, the Club closed the main track for training purposes due to the safety concerns they had. Mr Hamilton did not agree with the decision to close the track.
[15] A sign, which faced the lane onto the training track, advised track users of the closure of the track. On or about 22 March Mr Hamilton wrote on the sign “Sinnamon is a w**k*r - staff are losing jobs” with a black marker pen. This comment was made in reference to Mr Graeme Sinnamon who is a member of the Central Otago Equestrian Club.
[16] Sometime between 24 and 26 March 2016 Mr Hamilton arranged for another sign on the course to have “Sinnamon is a w**k*r” written on it with paint by one of his staff members. The writing was on the reverse side of a safety sign used on the course to advise of the hazard of horses in the vicinity and a warning it was a area that was restricted to licence holders and officials only.
[17] Mr Hamilton then placed the sign outside his stable area facing the driveway so it was visible from the driveway. Mr Hamilton continued to place the signage outside his stable until it was removed on 10 May 2016.
Decision
[18] We have no doubt that Mr Hamilton’s admission of the breach is appropriate. We find the charge proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[19] Mr Allison stated the Central Otago Equestrian Club was formed to administer the running of the Omakau Racecourse and its members were from the Central Otago Racing Club and the Central Otago Trotting Club.
[20] The RIU submitted the relevant sentencing principles were: retribution; general and specific deterrence; denunciation; and rehabilitation.
[21] Relevant cases concerning misconduct were:
RIU v Hamilton 3 March 2015 (an earlier case concerning the respondent) — Mr Hamilton rung NZTR and abused an employee from the Handicapping Department. The breach was admitted. Mr Hamilton was fined $350.
RIU v Vile 25 June 2014 — Mr Vile abused an employee from the NZTR Handicapping Department during a telephone conversation. The breach was admitted. Mr Vile was fined $350.
[22] The RIU identified aggravating features to be:
(a) The respondent had previously breached r 801(1)(s)(ii), which was laid as a serious racing offence in December 2014.
(b) The phone call to Mr Armstrong was some 16 minutes in duration.
(c) Both victims of Mr Hamilton’s behaviour were volunteers who gave their time without reward.
(d) The graffiti was a personal attack on a member of the Committee who was endeavouring to undertake his voluntary duties.
(e) The conduct of writing on the racecourse sign was premeditated and was not a spur of the moment reaction.
(f) Mr Hamilton is an experienced trainer and should have been aware of the expectations and requirements in relation to his behaviour.
[23] Mitigating factors identified in the RIU’s written submissions were confirmed by Mr Hamilton in his oral submission.
[24] When spoken to by RIU Investigators, Mr Hamilton was co-operative and openly admitted his actions. He told Mr Allison he was frustrated with some of the decisions made by the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which he did not agree with, however he acknowledged he had over stepped the mark with respect to both breaches.
[25] The phone call made was private and was not in the public domain, which would have been a more serious breach. The victim of the phone call kept his composure throughout and did not respond in a similar fashion to Mr Hamilton.
[26] The writing on the signs was not conducted on a race day and was seen only by a small number of persons due to the rural location.
[27] In relation to information A6630, the RIU submitted a $500 fine was appropriate.
[28] In relation to information A6632, the RIU again submitted that a $500 fine should be imposed.
[29] The RIU further submitted that both of the fines should be suspended for a period of 18 months if specified conditions were met. The RIU identified the purpose of the suspended sentence to be to support the Central Otago Equestrian Club’s endeavours to ensure all their participants acted within the rules of the respective codes.
[30] The suspended penalty was seen to be an incentive for Mr Hamilton to not breach the Rules. It would act as a deterrent, as, if he were to re-offend, he would be held accountable for the current breaches of the Rules, in addition to being liable to the penalty imposed for the further breach.
[31] In particular, the RIU believed a suspended penalty would assist in a more harmonious relationship between Mr Hamilton and the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which was operating within a very small rural community. The local Omakau Police Officer was said to be “well aware of the current environment” and was monitoring the situation.
[32] Mr Hamilton confirmed he would accept the imposition of a suspended penalty and would abide by any conditions that the Committee were to impose. He explained that while the earthworks that had been conducted on the track at his instigation were extensive, they were necessary to ensure the galloping meeting in early January next year went ahead. The remedial work had to be done before winter. He said he had consulted prominent Wingatui trainers, who were supportive of his actions, as were other licence holders.
[33] Mr Hamilton acknowledged he did not have the approval of the Central Otago Equestrian Club to authorise the work and stated that he was angry at the fact that the Club had closed the track as he believed there was sufficient room for horses in work to skirt around the repairs. He believed the work that was done on the track was necessary for the safety of jockeys and horses and that members of the track committee knew it was being done.
[34] Mr Hamilton disagreed that there was a health and safety issue, which necessitated the closing of the track. He also referred to a fencing issue that had arisen that had made it very difficult for him to water his horses. Nonetheless, he accepted that on reflection he had gone about matters the wrong way when he abused Mr Armstrong and defaced the Club’s signs. He said there had been ongoing issues, and frustration had just got the better of him. He added that the defacing of the notice had also referred to the fact that workers, such as track riders, needed their wages, which were now in jeopardy with the closing of the track.
[35] A further consequence of the respondent’s actions is that he has been issued with a trespass notice and as of 19 May 2016 he is forbidden to go on the Omakau Racecourse.
Decision as to penalty
[36] We have had regard to the context of the two breaches.
[37] Whilst the words to which the first charge relates were used in a private conversation, they were foul and highly insulting. There is simply no excuse for the use of such language. It was not a slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment, such as the uttering of an expletive. This was repetitive abuse of a voluntary official. There is no place in the industry for such behaviour. Denunciation of the respondent’s actions is thus a primary consideration.
[38] We note that to his credit, Mr Armstrong conducted himself with decorum throughout the conversation and did not resort to language in the style used by Mr Hamilton.
[39] That Mr Hamilton has a previous breach of a similar rule is a personal aggravating factor.
[40] Mitigating personal factors are that Mr Hamilton has admitted the breach at the first opportunity, he is remorseful and has apologised to this Committee for his actions. We were not informed whether he had apologised to Mr Armstrong.
[41] Mr Hamilton has been involved in both the Thoroughbred and Harness codes for many years and has held official positions, including that of President of his local Club. This is to his credit, but it should also have alerted him to the fact that to abuse voluntary Club officials in this manner is unacceptable.
[42] We are informed that the matters that underscore the respondent’s actions in this case have not been resolved. The issue is in the hands of the lawyers for the Club and the respondent.
[43] There is thus a need to place an emphasis on the prevention of further breaches by encouraging the respondent’s rehabilitation. Hence, the RIU’s submission that any penalty that is imposed be suspended. Mr Hamilton has consented to this course of action and has stated he will abide by the Rules in future and is prepared to give undertakings as to his future conduct.
[44] We understand the need to attempt to regulate the respondent’s further behaviour through the penalty we impose, but there is also a need to hold Mr Hamilton accountable for his actions. We do not believe that a purely suspended penalty achieves this purpose.
[45] The cases demonstrate penalties to be at a level of around $350 for breaches similar to that before us. However, the respondent has a previous history of breaching a misconduct rule. This has to be factored into penalty.
[46] Mr Hamilton is fined the sum of $500 on each of the two charges. With the consent of both parties, the fine in respect of information No. A6632 is suspended for a period of 18 months. This fine is to be paid in full if the respondent is charged with any breach of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing relating to misconduct before 31 December 2017, which is subsequently found to be proved.
[47] In determining that a partially suspended sentence is appropriate, we have also had regard to the fact that Mr Hamilton has given the following undertakings:
(i) He will not, from today’s date, breach the trespass notice obtained in respect of him by the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which has been in effect since 19 May 2016.
(ii) If the trespass notice, which has effect for two years, is revoked at a later date, he will adhere to all his training lease conditions.
(iii) He will not undertake any work on the Omakau Racecourse without the permission of the Central Otago Equestrian Club.
(iv) He will not make phone contact with members of the Central Otago Equestrian Club in relation to racing matters, but will make contact with the committee of that Club in writing.
[48] The RIU does not seek costs. A contribution to the costs of the JCA pursuant to r 920(3)(d) is appropriate, although regard is to be had to the fact the matter was heard on the papers.
[49] We order that Mr Hamilton pay the sum of $350 in costs to the JCA.
Dated at Dunedin this 11th day of July 2016.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 11/07/2016
Publish Date: 11/07/2016
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: 5c5c6d970da9bf4d6617dc9d609792e2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 11/07/2016
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Hamilton - Decision dated 11 July 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MURRAY HAMILTON, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A6630 & 6632
COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr P Knowles, Member
DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 11 July 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr C Allison, Racecourse Investigator, on behalf of his employer, the RIU, has charged Mr M Hamilton, Licensed Trainer (Class A) with two breaches of r 340 of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing.
[2] The first charge (information no. A6630) is that on 5 February last he rang Mr Neville Armstrong, the Secretary of the Central Otago Equestrian Club, and used abusive and offensive language.
[3] The second charge (information no. A6632) is that between 22 and 26 April 2016, being a class A trainer, Mr Hamilton did misconduct himself by writing or cause to be written “Sinnamon is a w**k*r” on two racecourse signs.
[4] Mr Hamilton has been licensed with NZTR since 2003. Prior to being issued a licence with NZTR Mr Hamilton had been licensed in the Harness Racing industry since 1972.
[5] Mr Hamilton is 67 years old and resides in Omakau.
[6] Rule 340 of the Rules of Racing states:
A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or any other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.
[7] The penalty provisions which apply in this case are found in r 803, which states:
(1) A person who commits, or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/ or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/ or
(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.
[8] Mr Allison produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 903(2)(d). The letter was dated 7 June 2016.
[9] A telephone conference was held on 6 July during which Mr Hamilton stated that he admitted the breach and wanted the matter to be heard on the papers. The informant did not object to our adopting this course of action, which we accept is appropriate in the circumstances. We have received a summary of facts from Mr Allison, which Mr Hamilton accepts is accurate. We have also received written submissions from Mr Allison as to penalty and have had the benefit of an oral response to these from Mr Hamilton.
Facts
[10] The facts may be stated briefly.
[11] On 4 February 2016 Mr Hamilton was sent a letter from the Central Otago Equestrian Club warning him to return fencing equipment after Mr Hamilton had staff members alter some fencing in paddocks where Mr Hamilton’s horses were based on the Omakau Racecourse. It further advised if the conditions imposed in the letter were not met, the Club would look at further action.
[12] Mr Hamilton did not agree with the contents of the letter. At about 10.48am on 5 February Mr Hamilton rung Mr Armstrong the Secretary of the Central Otago Equestrian Club to discuss the letter.
[13] During the conversation, which lasted approximately 16 minutes, Mr Hamilton became agitated and commenced to abuse Mr Armstrong and to use obscene language. Mr Hamilton during the course of the conversation used the following words and phrases with respect to Mr Armstrong: “his being a c**t”, “he’d be a c**t of a boss”, “no bastard liked him”, “everybody hated him and he was just a c** of a person and a f**ing idiot”, “He was a f**ing idiot and he should f*** off”’, “f*** off and give his brother a go”.
[14] In March 2016 Mr Hamilton arranged for a local contractor to undertake work on the main thoroughbred grass track. This work was completed without any consultation with or the knowledge of the Central Otago Equestrian Club. As a result of this work, the Club closed the main track for training purposes due to the safety concerns they had. Mr Hamilton did not agree with the decision to close the track.
[15] A sign, which faced the lane onto the training track, advised track users of the closure of the track. On or about 22 March Mr Hamilton wrote on the sign “Sinnamon is a w**k*r - staff are losing jobs” with a black marker pen. This comment was made in reference to Mr Graeme Sinnamon who is a member of the Central Otago Equestrian Club.
[16] Sometime between 24 and 26 March 2016 Mr Hamilton arranged for another sign on the course to have “Sinnamon is a w**k*r” written on it with paint by one of his staff members. The writing was on the reverse side of a safety sign used on the course to advise of the hazard of horses in the vicinity and a warning it was a area that was restricted to licence holders and officials only.
[17] Mr Hamilton then placed the sign outside his stable area facing the driveway so it was visible from the driveway. Mr Hamilton continued to place the signage outside his stable until it was removed on 10 May 2016.
Decision
[18] We have no doubt that Mr Hamilton’s admission of the breach is appropriate. We find the charge proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[19] Mr Allison stated the Central Otago Equestrian Club was formed to administer the running of the Omakau Racecourse and its members were from the Central Otago Racing Club and the Central Otago Trotting Club.
[20] The RIU submitted the relevant sentencing principles were: retribution; general and specific deterrence; denunciation; and rehabilitation.
[21] Relevant cases concerning misconduct were:
RIU v Hamilton 3 March 2015 (an earlier case concerning the respondent) — Mr Hamilton rung NZTR and abused an employee from the Handicapping Department. The breach was admitted. Mr Hamilton was fined $350.
RIU v Vile 25 June 2014 — Mr Vile abused an employee from the NZTR Handicapping Department during a telephone conversation. The breach was admitted. Mr Vile was fined $350.
[22] The RIU identified aggravating features to be:
(a) The respondent had previously breached r 801(1)(s)(ii), which was laid as a serious racing offence in December 2014.
(b) The phone call to Mr Armstrong was some 16 minutes in duration.
(c) Both victims of Mr Hamilton’s behaviour were volunteers who gave their time without reward.
(d) The graffiti was a personal attack on a member of the Committee who was endeavouring to undertake his voluntary duties.
(e) The conduct of writing on the racecourse sign was premeditated and was not a spur of the moment reaction.
(f) Mr Hamilton is an experienced trainer and should have been aware of the expectations and requirements in relation to his behaviour.
[23] Mitigating factors identified in the RIU’s written submissions were confirmed by Mr Hamilton in his oral submission.
[24] When spoken to by RIU Investigators, Mr Hamilton was co-operative and openly admitted his actions. He told Mr Allison he was frustrated with some of the decisions made by the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which he did not agree with, however he acknowledged he had over stepped the mark with respect to both breaches.
[25] The phone call made was private and was not in the public domain, which would have been a more serious breach. The victim of the phone call kept his composure throughout and did not respond in a similar fashion to Mr Hamilton.
[26] The writing on the signs was not conducted on a race day and was seen only by a small number of persons due to the rural location.
[27] In relation to information A6630, the RIU submitted a $500 fine was appropriate.
[28] In relation to information A6632, the RIU again submitted that a $500 fine should be imposed.
[29] The RIU further submitted that both of the fines should be suspended for a period of 18 months if specified conditions were met. The RIU identified the purpose of the suspended sentence to be to support the Central Otago Equestrian Club’s endeavours to ensure all their participants acted within the rules of the respective codes.
[30] The suspended penalty was seen to be an incentive for Mr Hamilton to not breach the Rules. It would act as a deterrent, as, if he were to re-offend, he would be held accountable for the current breaches of the Rules, in addition to being liable to the penalty imposed for the further breach.
[31] In particular, the RIU believed a suspended penalty would assist in a more harmonious relationship between Mr Hamilton and the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which was operating within a very small rural community. The local Omakau Police Officer was said to be “well aware of the current environment” and was monitoring the situation.
[32] Mr Hamilton confirmed he would accept the imposition of a suspended penalty and would abide by any conditions that the Committee were to impose. He explained that while the earthworks that had been conducted on the track at his instigation were extensive, they were necessary to ensure the galloping meeting in early January next year went ahead. The remedial work had to be done before winter. He said he had consulted prominent Wingatui trainers, who were supportive of his actions, as were other licence holders.
[33] Mr Hamilton acknowledged he did not have the approval of the Central Otago Equestrian Club to authorise the work and stated that he was angry at the fact that the Club had closed the track as he believed there was sufficient room for horses in work to skirt around the repairs. He believed the work that was done on the track was necessary for the safety of jockeys and horses and that members of the track committee knew it was being done.
[34] Mr Hamilton disagreed that there was a health and safety issue, which necessitated the closing of the track. He also referred to a fencing issue that had arisen that had made it very difficult for him to water his horses. Nonetheless, he accepted that on reflection he had gone about matters the wrong way when he abused Mr Armstrong and defaced the Club’s signs. He said there had been ongoing issues, and frustration had just got the better of him. He added that the defacing of the notice had also referred to the fact that workers, such as track riders, needed their wages, which were now in jeopardy with the closing of the track.
[35] A further consequence of the respondent’s actions is that he has been issued with a trespass notice and as of 19 May 2016 he is forbidden to go on the Omakau Racecourse.
Decision as to penalty
[36] We have had regard to the context of the two breaches.
[37] Whilst the words to which the first charge relates were used in a private conversation, they were foul and highly insulting. There is simply no excuse for the use of such language. It was not a slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment, such as the uttering of an expletive. This was repetitive abuse of a voluntary official. There is no place in the industry for such behaviour. Denunciation of the respondent’s actions is thus a primary consideration.
[38] We note that to his credit, Mr Armstrong conducted himself with decorum throughout the conversation and did not resort to language in the style used by Mr Hamilton.
[39] That Mr Hamilton has a previous breach of a similar rule is a personal aggravating factor.
[40] Mitigating personal factors are that Mr Hamilton has admitted the breach at the first opportunity, he is remorseful and has apologised to this Committee for his actions. We were not informed whether he had apologised to Mr Armstrong.
[41] Mr Hamilton has been involved in both the Thoroughbred and Harness codes for many years and has held official positions, including that of President of his local Club. This is to his credit, but it should also have alerted him to the fact that to abuse voluntary Club officials in this manner is unacceptable.
[42] We are informed that the matters that underscore the respondent’s actions in this case have not been resolved. The issue is in the hands of the lawyers for the Club and the respondent.
[43] There is thus a need to place an emphasis on the prevention of further breaches by encouraging the respondent’s rehabilitation. Hence, the RIU’s submission that any penalty that is imposed be suspended. Mr Hamilton has consented to this course of action and has stated he will abide by the Rules in future and is prepared to give undertakings as to his future conduct.
[44] We understand the need to attempt to regulate the respondent’s further behaviour through the penalty we impose, but there is also a need to hold Mr Hamilton accountable for his actions. We do not believe that a purely suspended penalty achieves this purpose.
[45] The cases demonstrate penalties to be at a level of around $350 for breaches similar to that before us. However, the respondent has a previous history of breaching a misconduct rule. This has to be factored into penalty.
[46] Mr Hamilton is fined the sum of $500 on each of the two charges. With the consent of both parties, the fine in respect of information No. A6632 is suspended for a period of 18 months. This fine is to be paid in full if the respondent is charged with any breach of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing relating to misconduct before 31 December 2017, which is subsequently found to be proved.
[47] In determining that a partially suspended sentence is appropriate, we have also had regard to the fact that Mr Hamilton has given the following undertakings:
(i) He will not, from today’s date, breach the trespass notice obtained in respect of him by the Central Otago Equestrian Club, which has been in effect since 19 May 2016.
(ii) If the trespass notice, which has effect for two years, is revoked at a later date, he will adhere to all his training lease conditions.
(iii) He will not undertake any work on the Omakau Racecourse without the permission of the Central Otago Equestrian Club.
(iv) He will not make phone contact with members of the Central Otago Equestrian Club in relation to racing matters, but will make contact with the committee of that Club in writing.
[48] The RIU does not seek costs. A contribution to the costs of the JCA pursuant to r 920(3)(d) is appropriate, although regard is to be had to the fact the matter was heard on the papers.
[49] We order that Mr Hamilton pay the sum of $350 in costs to the JCA.
Dated at Dunedin this 11th day of July 2016.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
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: