Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S Evans – decision dated 8 May 2016 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA14655
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. A1496
BETWEEN J M McLAUGHLIN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND S EVANS of Leeston, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie (Chairman), G J Clapp (Committee Member)
Present: J M McLaughlin, the Informant
Date of Hearing: 8 May 2016
Date of Decision: 8 May 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A1496 alleges that in Race 1, Super Pets Sprint, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington on 5th May 2016, Mr Evans committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that, as the trainer of ULTRA ACTION in that race, he did a thing that was negligent in relation to greyhound racing in that he “placed ULTRA ACTION in the wrong box”.
[2] The information was served on Mr Evans on the day of the meeting. Mr Evans signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the Information indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule.
[3] The charge was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC meeting at Addington Raceway on Sunday, 8 May 2016. Mr McLaughlin informed the Committee that Mr Evans did not wish to attend the hearing of the charge.
The Rule
[4] Rule 88 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
88.1 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, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Evidence of the Informant
[5] Mr McLaughlin showed video replays of the incident prior to the start of Race 1. He showed the greyhounds being boxed at the 295 metres start. He said that ULTRA ACTION had drawn to start from box 5.
[6] He pointed out the runner being loaded into box 3 by its handler, Mr McInerney, and explained that ULTRA ACTION was the next dog to box. However, instead of loading ULTRA ACTION into box 5, Mr Evans incorrectly loaded it into box 4. It could be seen on the head-on video that box 4 was occupied and the back door had been closed. The mistake was noticed, he said, when the handler of the number 4 greyhound attempted to load his dog, only to find that box 4 was already occupied by ULTRA ACTION. It was fortunate that the mistake had been noticed, Mr McLaughlin said.
[7] Mr McLaughlin said that it was necessary to unload all of the dogs that had been boxed, including ULTRA ACTION, and have them vetted, prior to the field being reboxed. As a consequence of that, the race was approximately 4½ minutes late in starting.
Decision
[8] Mr Evans having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
Penalty Decision
[9] Mr McLaughlin said that Mr Evans had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. Mr Evans had explained to the Stewards that he had been talking at the time and not paying attention.
[10] Mr McLaughlin said that the charge had been brought under Rule 87.1.o as there was no specific Rule.
[11] He submitted that a fine of not less than $100 was appropriate.
Reasons for Penalty:
[12] There was nothing in the way of precedent for penalty for a breach of the Rule with similar facts. However, the Committee noted that fines of $100 had been imposed for a number of breaches of Rule 87.1.o involving presenting a greyhound with an incorrect number and, more helpfully, boxing a greyhound with the collar still on requiring it to be removed from its box.
[13] Mr Evans had been frank in his admission of the breach and we accept that it was merely a momentary lack of attention. Mr Evans’ error was discovered in time and, in the event, the consequences were minor.
[14] The Committee was satisfied that Mr McLaughlin’s submission for a fine of not less than $100 was appropriate.
Penalty:
[15] Mr Evans was fined the sum of $100.
R G McKENZIE G J CLAPP
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 10/05/2016
Publish Date: 10/05/2016
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: a05d248b2a2527a98d2d2f79e003e391
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/05/2016
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S Evans - decision dated 8 May 2016 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
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. A1496
BETWEEN J M McLAUGHLIN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND S EVANS of Leeston, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie (Chairman), G J Clapp (Committee Member)
Present: J M McLaughlin, the Informant
Date of Hearing: 8 May 2016
Date of Decision: 8 May 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A1496 alleges that in Race 1, Super Pets Sprint, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington on 5th May 2016, Mr Evans committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that, as the trainer of ULTRA ACTION in that race, he did a thing that was negligent in relation to greyhound racing in that he “placed ULTRA ACTION in the wrong box”.
[2] The information was served on Mr Evans on the day of the meeting. Mr Evans signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the Information indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule.
[3] The charge was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC meeting at Addington Raceway on Sunday, 8 May 2016. Mr McLaughlin informed the Committee that Mr Evans did not wish to attend the hearing of the charge.
The Rule
[4] Rule 88 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
88.1 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, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Evidence of the Informant
[5] Mr McLaughlin showed video replays of the incident prior to the start of Race 1. He showed the greyhounds being boxed at the 295 metres start. He said that ULTRA ACTION had drawn to start from box 5.
[6] He pointed out the runner being loaded into box 3 by its handler, Mr McInerney, and explained that ULTRA ACTION was the next dog to box. However, instead of loading ULTRA ACTION into box 5, Mr Evans incorrectly loaded it into box 4. It could be seen on the head-on video that box 4 was occupied and the back door had been closed. The mistake was noticed, he said, when the handler of the number 4 greyhound attempted to load his dog, only to find that box 4 was already occupied by ULTRA ACTION. It was fortunate that the mistake had been noticed, Mr McLaughlin said.
[7] Mr McLaughlin said that it was necessary to unload all of the dogs that had been boxed, including ULTRA ACTION, and have them vetted, prior to the field being reboxed. As a consequence of that, the race was approximately 4½ minutes late in starting.
Decision
[8] Mr Evans having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
Penalty Decision
[9] Mr McLaughlin said that Mr Evans had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. Mr Evans had explained to the Stewards that he had been talking at the time and not paying attention.
[10] Mr McLaughlin said that the charge had been brought under Rule 87.1.o as there was no specific Rule.
[11] He submitted that a fine of not less than $100 was appropriate.
Reasons for Penalty:
[12] There was nothing in the way of precedent for penalty for a breach of the Rule with similar facts. However, the Committee noted that fines of $100 had been imposed for a number of breaches of Rule 87.1.o involving presenting a greyhound with an incorrect number and, more helpfully, boxing a greyhound with the collar still on requiring it to be removed from its box.
[13] Mr Evans had been frank in his admission of the breach and we accept that it was merely a momentary lack of attention. Mr Evans’ error was discovered in time and, in the event, the consequences were minor.
[14] The Committee was satisfied that Mr McLaughlin’s submission for a fine of not less than $100 was appropriate.
Penalty:
[15] Mr Evans was fined the sum of $100.
R G McKENZIE G J CLAPP
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: