Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D M Crozier – Reserved Decision dated 10 October 2016 – Chair, Mr S C Ching

hearingid: 5f2736c3147a5deaa61a7dd5026bcf73

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/10/2016

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D M Crozier - Reserved Decision dated 10 October 2016 - Chair, Mr S C Ching

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A5031

BETWEEN K R WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

Applicant

AND D M CROZIER Licensed Class A Public Trainer

Respondent

Judicial Committee: S C Ching (Chairman), R G McKenzie (Committee Member)

Present: K R Williams, Racing Investigator (for the Racing Integrity Unit)

Mr D M Crozier, the Respondent

Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward as Registrar

Date of Hearing: 1 October 2016

Venue: Riccarton Racecourse, Christchurch

Date of Decision: 10 October 2016

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] Information No. A5031 alleges that On the 26th day of August 2016, Danny Michael CROZIER being the holder of a Class A Public Trainer’s licence issued under the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules, did misconduct himself by acting in a disorderly manner.

The respondent is alleged to have thereby committed a breach of Rule 340 of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules and is liable to the penalties that may be imposed on him pursuant to the provisions of Rule 803(1).

The Plea

[2] The information was served on Mr Crozier on 19 September 2016. Mr Crozier had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule.

[3] Mr Crozier was present at the hearing of the information and he confirmed that he admitted the breach and he understood the Rule was being charged with.

[4] The charge was found proved accordingly.

The Rule

[5] Rule 340 provides as follows:

340 A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

[6] Mrs Williams produced documentation dated 16 September 2016, from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, authorising Mrs Williams under Rule 903(2)(d), to lodge the information against Mr Crozier.

Agreed Summary of Facts

[7] Mrs Williams presented the following agreed summary of facts:

The respondent Danny Michael CROZIER is a licenced trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. Mr Crozier currently has a Class A Trainer’s licence and has been licenced as a trainer since 2012.

On 26 August 2016 at the Ashburton RC meeting Mr Murray Hamilton brought a horse that was not racing to the races for trainer Mr Peter Rudkin to take home. Mr Rudkin moved the horse from the outside tie ups to an allocated raceday box when Mr Hamilton was leaving so that it was not left on its own.

Trainer Danny Crozier moved the said horse from the box when he arrived on course at about Race 5 to a stall so that he could use the box for his racehorse. He left his red and white lead with the horse. Mr Crozier was allocated box 125.

Mr Rudkin became aware the horse had been moved but did not advise or make a complaint to the Stipendiary Stewards and/or Racing Investigator at the meeting.

Mr Rudkin was aware that whoever moved the horse would want their lead back so waited to find out who the "culprit" was when they later returned.

After the last race Mr Crozier approached Mr Rudkin as he led the horse out to the float park. He then asked for his lead back.

Mr Rudkin refused to give the lead back saying that he would “take it to the room”, (meaning the Stipendiary Stewards Room).

The conversation became heated and resulted in a physical altercation occurring on Peter Rudkin's float. Several punches were exchanged between the two with Danny Crozier receiving a chipped tooth.

A Majestic Float driver intervened and broke up the fight.

A second altercation occurred a short time later when both parties went back into the stabling area to get their other horses. Another fight ensued with punches again being exchanged by both parties. In this incident Peter Rudkin received a black eye.

This incident was broken up by a licenced trainer who witnessed the fight.

Investigators were subsequently advised of the incident and the parties interviewed.

In explanation Mr Crozier admitted that he had thrown punches but Mr Rudkin had given me a smack in the mouth and I retaliated.

Mr Crozier has not previously been charged with a breach of Rule 340.

Mrs Williams also provided to the Committee written signed statements from Mr Crozier and Mr Rudkin as well as witnesses Mr J Ramsay and Mr M Daly.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

[8] Mrs Williams presented the following submissions in relation to penalty:

1. The respondent Mr Danny Crozier is a licenced trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing. He has held a Trainers licence in New Zealand since 2012 and was previously licenced as a Jockey in Australia and New Zealand. He is 53 years of age with a date of birth of 15 August 1963.

2. Mr Crozier has pleaded guilty to a breach of Rule 340 for misconduct after he acted in a disorderly manner on the 26th day of August 2016 at the Ashburton RC meeting.

3. Mr Crozier acted in a disorderly manner when being involved in two incidents which resulted in punches being thrown and injuries being sustained by both parties.

4. The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 803 (1)

803 (1) A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them 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. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence: and/or

(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000

5. Sentencing Principles -

The four principals of sentencing can be summarised briefly

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not retributive in the sense that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence but the offender must be met with a punishment.

• In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing like offenses.

• A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the J.C.A for the type of behaviour in question.

• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account.

The first three principles are particularly important in this case.

6. Relevant Precedents –

In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedence

R.I.U. v M McNab 29 June 2016
Subject: Misconduct - Assaulting another Jockey – Disqualified one month, JCA costs $400

R.I.U v R P Liefting 26 February 2013
Subject: Misconduct - Obscene/foul language & aggressive/threatening behaviour to trainer – fined $750, JCA costs $750

NZTR v R Black 20 July 2011
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted an owner – trainers and amateur rider’s licences suspended 6 months, fined $500 and JCA costs $100

NZTR v T Thornton June 2008
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted another jockey – disqualified 2 months, NZTR costs $750, JCA costs $250

NZTR v D Bothamley 30 September 2008
Subject: Misconduct – assaulted another jockey – disqualified 1 months, NZTR costs $150, JCA costs $250

I respectively submit that these cases have the most relevance to these proceedings.

7. Aggravating Features –

a) Mr Crozier has been licensed as a trainer in New Zealand since 2012 and for many years prior to this as a Jockey in Australia and New Zealand.

b) Mr Crozier is well aware that this type of behaviour by a licence holder is unacceptable and should have known better.

c) There were several occasions that Mr Crozier could have stopped or attempted to resolve the matter in a peaceful and rational manner.

d) Mr Crozier chose to engage in a second incident a short time after the first had been broken up.

e) On this occasion his behaviour was witnessed and stopped by industry participants but could well have been witnessed by members of the public as it occurred after the last race.

8. Mitigating Factors –

a) Mr Crozier has admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has co-operated fully with the RIU.

b) Mr Crozier has not been charged with a breach of this rule before.

9. Conclusion -

Industry participants need to be sent a clear message that behaviour of this type will not be tolerated and a deterrent by way of a substantial monetary fine should be imposed. We would normally seek a suspension of 1 – 3 months but in fairness to horse owners in the stable they should not be penalised for the personal actions of their trainer. The penalty in this instance should only penalise Mr Crozier. Any future infringement will certainly result in a request of a suspension.

The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $1000.

10. The R.I.U. are not seeking any costs.

Submissions of the Respondent

[9] Mr Crozier confirmed to the Committee that he agreed with the Summary of Facts presented by Mrs Williams.

[10] Mr Crozier stated that when he arrived at the races, someone had taken his allotted box 125. He said he was told the horse in his box belonged to Peter Rudkin and at that time could not find him. He said the horse was clearly not racing that day as it had no shoes on. He then moved the horse to a stall opposite so he could use the box for his horse, CATSUP.

[11] After the last race he saw Peter Rudkin take the horse with his lead rope and approached Mr Rudkin to ask for his lead rope back. He replied “You are not having it; I am going to the Stewards” over this. An argument ensued and when he went to retrieve his lead rope on his float, Mr Rudkin gave him a smack in the mouth. He said he received a chipped tooth. He retaliated and Mr Jason Ramsay pulled them apart.

[12] He said after that he went back to collect his other horse in the stalls to load on the float and Mr Rudkin gave him another belt. He said Mr Rudkin had been waiting for him. He said Mr Rudkin missed him and he then retaliated with Mr M Daly pulling them apart.

[13] Mr Crozier said that he thought that was the end of the matter. He went to the dentist on Thursday 1 September to get the tooth repaired.

Penalty submissions of the Respondent

[14] Mr Crozier stated that he had admitted the breach and had hoped Mr Rudkin had done the same. He said that if Mr Rudkin had not taken his allocated stall and taken his lead rope this incident would not have occurred. He said Mr Rudkin had a history of altercations with other trainers which showed his actions were not out of character.

[15] Mr Crozier also stated that he deeply regretted his own actions and what happened on the day. He submitted that this was unprofessional and totally out of character for him. He stated that he was provoked by Mr Rudkin who he said, created this situation and threw the first punch in this incident.

[16] Mr Crozier submitted that a fine was a preferable penalty and would leave it up to the Committee to decide the level of that fine.

Reasons for Penalty

[17] Mr Crozier has admitted a charge of misconduct arising out of an incident that took place between himself and another Licensed Trainer, Mr Peter Rudkin, at Ashburton Racecourse after the last race at Ashburton on 26 August 2016. Mr Rudkin was upset that Mr Crozier had moved a horse in the care of Mr Rudkin which, according to Mr Crozier, had been placed by Mr Rudkin in a box allocated to him but, according to Mr Rudkin, the horse had been placed in a box allocated to another trainer which was not required by that trainer on that day.

[18] Mr Crozier was upset that he had left a lead belonging to himself with the horse and that Mr Rudkin was initially refusing to return the lead to him.

[19] The dispute between Mr Crozier and Mr Rudkin resulted in those parties coming to blows, on the first occasion, on Mr Rudkin’s float and, on a second occasion, back at the boxes. According to the Summary of Facts, Mr Crozier received a chipped tooth and Mr Rudkin received a black eye in the exchange of punches.

[20] Statements obtained from two independent persons, but not referred to in the Summary of Facts, confirmed the version of what happened as set out in the Summary of Facts. One such person witnessed the first incident on the float, the other witnessed the incident back at the box. Neither witness was able to state which of Mr Crozier or Mr Rudkin threw the first punch on either occasion.

[21] The statements of Mr Crozier and Mr Rudkin are conflicting in respect of who provoked whom and who threw the first punch in each of the two incidents, firstly, at the horse float and then back at the boxes.

[22] In Mr Crozier’s statement he states:

As I went to retrieve my lead rope on his float he gave me a smack in the mouth. I received a chipped tooth. I retaliated . . . After that I have gone around the corner to get my other horse for the float . . . and he gave me another belt. He missed me and I retaliated.

[23] In Mr Rudkin’s statement he states:

He got wild and started pushing me. I said “here take the f.....g lead and we will deal with this in the room”, and he took a swing at me. I naturally swung back and connected. I hit him.

In relation to the second incident at the boxes, Mr Rudkin has stated:

He hit me across the door and connected on my cheek. With that I fired up and flew out of there and I got into him. I swung probably five or six times.

[24] We are, therefore, unable to resolve this conflict of evidence and, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to apportion blame equally between Mr Crozier and Mr Rudkin.

[25] It is totally unacceptable for two experienced licensed trainers to engage in fighting to resolve what was, essentially, a trivial matter. Such behaviour is detrimental to the image of thoroughbred racing and it was fortunate that the incidents were not more public, as they took place sometime after racing had concluded for the day.

[26] Mr Crozier has acknowledged that such conduct is unacceptable by admitting the charge of misconduct, which such behaviour clearly is.

[27] Misconduct can take any one of a number of forms. However, in assessing the level of seriousness of misconduct, any physical violence must be considered as serious misconduct. Any penalty should reflect that.

[28] Whichever party provoked the incident, the provocative conduct was such that the reaction to it by way of physical assault was unreasonable and out of proportion to the nature and degree of the provocative behaviour.

[29] The Committee believes that it is an aggravating factor in this case that, despite a “cooling off period”, Mr Crozier and Mr Rudkin resumed their confrontation, a short time after the initial incident, when further punches were thrown by both.

[30] We were told that Mr Crozier has held a trainer’s licence since 2012 and was previously licensed as a Jockey in Australia and New Zealand. Mr Crozier has not breached the misconduct Rule since that time. That is a good record which suggests that the present breach is out of character. In addition, Mr Crozier admitted the breach at the first opportunity and cooperated fully with the Racing Integrity Unit during the course of the investigation. These are mitigating factors for which Mr Crozier is entitled to credit.

[31] Mrs Williams referred the Committee to a number of other cases of breaches of the same Rule dating back to 2008. All but one of those previous cases involved assaults by jockeys. Four of the five offenders received periods of disqualification between 1 and 6 months and, in one case a fine in addition. The other previous case involved a trainer who used “obscene/foul language and aggressive /threatening behaviour” to another trainer. That trainer received a fine of $750.

[32] In her penalty submissions, Mrs Williams stated that the RIU would normally seek a suspension of 1-3 months but submitted that “in fairness to horse owners in the stable they should not be penalised for the personal actions of their trainer”. We agree, firstly, that the breach is sufficiently serious to warrant a period of disqualification and, secondly, that such a penalty would have serious consequences to other persons – in particular, owners and staff.

[33] Having regard to those consequences, the Committee intends to deal with the breach by way of a fine. However, for a fine to be imposed in lieu of a period of disqualification, such fine, to be meaningful, must be greater than the fine of $1,000 submitted by Mrs Williams as being appropriate.

[34] In arriving at penalty, the Committee has taken into account the need to satisfy the general principles of sentencing which are well-established - that is to say, to hold the offender accountable for his 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.

[35] In all of the circumstances and having regard to the serious nature of the offending and the sentencing principles in paragraph [34], the Committee has decided that an appropriate starting point for penalty is a fine of $3,000. From that starting point, Mr Crozier is entitled to a discount for the mitigating factors referred to in paragraph [30] above. The Committee has decided that a discount of $1,000 is appropriate in that regard.

Penalty

[36] Mr Crozier is fined the sum of $2,000.

Costs

[37] The Informant did not seek an award of costs and, since the hearing took place on a race day, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.

S C CHING          R G McKENZIE

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: