Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Bridge – Decision dated 9 December 2015 – Chair, Mr R Seabrook
ID: JCA14698
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
RIU v Mr J Bridge
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Richard Seabrook, Chair - Mr Adrian Dooley, Committee Member
VENUE: Ellerslie Racecourse
DATE: 9 December 2015
INFORMATION NUMBER: A7125
INFORMANT: Racing Integrity Unit – Mr A Cruickshank, RIU Investigator
RESPONDENT: Mr J Bridge - Licensed Racehorse Trainer
RULE: Rule 404 (2)
This Rule reads as follows:
A person shall not enter, accept, start or intend to start a horse in a race or trial (including a jump out or test for certification purposes) under a name other than its registered name or its recorded breeding details in the case of an unnamed horse that is entered for or starts in a trial.
PLEA: Admitted
CHARGE:
That on the 27th day of October 2015, Mr J W Bridge was the trainer and person responsible for the nomination and presentation of the unnamed 3year old filly (Volksraad(GB)-Splinter) to compete in Heat 15 at the trials meeting conducted by the Te Aroha Jockey Club at Te Aroha, when upon inspection, it was found to be the incorrect filly, being a breach of clause 4(a) of the 3rd Appendix (Regulation for Trials) and rule 404(2) of the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, and that Mr J W Bridge is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 803(1) of the said rules.
Mr Bridge did not wish to be present at the hearing.
SUBMISIONS by Mr A Cruickshank:
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr James BRIDGE is the holder of a Class A Trainer Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).
On 27 October 2015 Mr Bridge was the person responsible for the nomination and presentation of an unnamed 3 year old filly (Volksraad (GB) – Splinter), now named Hoskins, to compete in Heat 15 at the trials meeting conducted by the Te Aroha Jockey Club at Te Aroha.
After nominations were verified Stipendiary Stewards in attendance obtained the identification sheets from New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
The Volksraad (GB) – Splinter filly is recorded as having brands S and 77 over 2.
Upon inspection by the Stewards prior to the commencement of racing it was found that the filly presented by Mr Bridge was branded S and 79 over 2.
The horse was then checked using a microchip scanner and it was confirmed that the horse presented was not the 3 year old filly (Volksraad (GB) – Splinter).
Checks with NZTR confirmed that the horse presented was in fact a 3 year old filly named Lady Conraad (Volksraad (GB) – Condover).
The horse presented was photographed by the Stewards in attendance.
It was subsequently scratched from the trial with the entry fee being forfeited.
Subsequent enquiries have confirmed that both horses were bred by Windsor Park Stud, and at the time they were uplifted an error was made by Windsor Park Stud whereby the wrong horse was given to Mr Bridge.
Mr Bridge did not check that the horse he received was in fact the Volksraad (GB) – Condover filly which has since been named Lady Conraad.
The trainer that did receive the horse Mr Bridge believed he was getting was Mr Patrick Campbell. Mr Campbell also did not check the brands of his horse when it was uplifted and he also appears to have filed incorrect Stable Returns with NZTR.
When spoken to, Mr Bridge stated that Windsor Park Stud had given him the wrong horse and that he relied on their information that the horse he had was in fact the correct one.
Mr Bridge is a Class A Licensed Trainer. He derives his income solely from the training of race horses. He has no history of similar offending.
Mr Bridge did not wish to make any submissions.
DECISION:
As the breach was admitted we find the charge proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
1. The respondent Mr James Bridge is a Class A Licensed Trainer. He has been involved in the racing industry for most of his adult. He is 33 years of age with a date of birth of 22 July 1982.
2. Mr Bridge has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to a charge of presenting and intending to start in a trial a horse which was not that which was accepted to start when nominated by Mr Bridge.
3. The facts are set out in the Summary of Facts and these are not disputed.
4. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the Charge Rule Penalty provisions document.
5. Mr Cruickshank believed that this breach could be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end the RIU seek a fine of $450.00.
6. In support of this penalty he referred to previous decisions by the JCA which set the precedent and may be of some assistance.
7. In RIU v N.W. TILEY (10.08.13) this matter related to presentation of the wrong horse at the Cambridge Trials. The identification of the horses by the Trainer was incorrect from the time that he received them. Penalty imposed $450 fine.
8. RIU v K.L. McQUADE (21.11.13) this matter related to presentation of the wrong horse at the Cambridge Trials. There was an error when the horse was purchased. Penalty imposed $500 fine.
9. In both of the cases above it was agreed that a fine was appropriate and that the starting point for such a fine should be $800.
10. In this case Mr Cruickshank submitted there were some mitigating factors:-
a. Mr Bridge has been given the wrong horse by Windsor Park Stud.
b. Mr Bridge has no previous record involving similar type matters.
c. The race meeting was a Trial meeting (where horses may be unnamed and attend trials for education) as opposed to an actual race meeting.
d. Neither Mr Bridge nor Mr Campbell picked up the Windsor Park Stud error despite filing stable returns with NZTR.
e. Mr Bridge has accepted responsibility for his actions and has been totally co-operative throughout this investigation.
11. Mr Bridge’s culpability is at the lower end.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS BY MR J BRIDGE (by way of letter):
Mr Bridge said he admitted presenting the wrong horse to trial on 27 October at Te Aroha. He stated that he understood the RIU were recommending a $450 fine in line with the Tiley case and he agreed that was a suitable penalty. He confirmed that he was happy for the judicial committee to deal with the matter on the papers without his attendance and he had no submissions to make.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Mitigating factors are Mr Bridge’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this rule. We are satisfied there was no intent or malice on Mr Bridge’s part to deceive officials by presenting the wrong horse at an official trial meeting. While Windsor Park was negligent in sending the wrong horse to Mr Bridge it is his obligation to check the identification when the horse first enters the stable. The committee considers this to be an aggravating fact.
The committee consulted the JCA penalty guide which showed a starting point for a breach of this rule is $800. We are also aware of recent penalties pursuant to this rule which incurred fines in the vicinity of $500.
PENALTY:
After taking all the above into account we impose a fine of $500.
As the hearing was conducted on a race day there will be no order for costs.
R Seabrook A Dooley
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 15/12/2015
Publish Date: 15/12/2015
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: 71e5f5e9c90f932db0f6b94d49697c59
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 15/12/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Bridge - Decision dated 9 December 2015 - Chair, Mr R Seabrook
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
RIU v Mr J Bridge
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Richard Seabrook, Chair - Mr Adrian Dooley, Committee Member
VENUE: Ellerslie Racecourse
DATE: 9 December 2015
INFORMATION NUMBER: A7125
INFORMANT: Racing Integrity Unit – Mr A Cruickshank, RIU Investigator
RESPONDENT: Mr J Bridge - Licensed Racehorse Trainer
RULE: Rule 404 (2)
This Rule reads as follows:
A person shall not enter, accept, start or intend to start a horse in a race or trial (including a jump out or test for certification purposes) under a name other than its registered name or its recorded breeding details in the case of an unnamed horse that is entered for or starts in a trial.
PLEA: Admitted
CHARGE:
That on the 27th day of October 2015, Mr J W Bridge was the trainer and person responsible for the nomination and presentation of the unnamed 3year old filly (Volksraad(GB)-Splinter) to compete in Heat 15 at the trials meeting conducted by the Te Aroha Jockey Club at Te Aroha, when upon inspection, it was found to be the incorrect filly, being a breach of clause 4(a) of the 3rd Appendix (Regulation for Trials) and rule 404(2) of the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, and that Mr J W Bridge is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 803(1) of the said rules.
Mr Bridge did not wish to be present at the hearing.
SUBMISIONS by Mr A Cruickshank:
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Mr James BRIDGE is the holder of a Class A Trainer Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).
On 27 October 2015 Mr Bridge was the person responsible for the nomination and presentation of an unnamed 3 year old filly (Volksraad (GB) – Splinter), now named Hoskins, to compete in Heat 15 at the trials meeting conducted by the Te Aroha Jockey Club at Te Aroha.
After nominations were verified Stipendiary Stewards in attendance obtained the identification sheets from New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.
The Volksraad (GB) – Splinter filly is recorded as having brands S and 77 over 2.
Upon inspection by the Stewards prior to the commencement of racing it was found that the filly presented by Mr Bridge was branded S and 79 over 2.
The horse was then checked using a microchip scanner and it was confirmed that the horse presented was not the 3 year old filly (Volksraad (GB) – Splinter).
Checks with NZTR confirmed that the horse presented was in fact a 3 year old filly named Lady Conraad (Volksraad (GB) – Condover).
The horse presented was photographed by the Stewards in attendance.
It was subsequently scratched from the trial with the entry fee being forfeited.
Subsequent enquiries have confirmed that both horses were bred by Windsor Park Stud, and at the time they were uplifted an error was made by Windsor Park Stud whereby the wrong horse was given to Mr Bridge.
Mr Bridge did not check that the horse he received was in fact the Volksraad (GB) – Condover filly which has since been named Lady Conraad.
The trainer that did receive the horse Mr Bridge believed he was getting was Mr Patrick Campbell. Mr Campbell also did not check the brands of his horse when it was uplifted and he also appears to have filed incorrect Stable Returns with NZTR.
When spoken to, Mr Bridge stated that Windsor Park Stud had given him the wrong horse and that he relied on their information that the horse he had was in fact the correct one.
Mr Bridge is a Class A Licensed Trainer. He derives his income solely from the training of race horses. He has no history of similar offending.
Mr Bridge did not wish to make any submissions.
DECISION:
As the breach was admitted we find the charge proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
1. The respondent Mr James Bridge is a Class A Licensed Trainer. He has been involved in the racing industry for most of his adult. He is 33 years of age with a date of birth of 22 July 1982.
2. Mr Bridge has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to a charge of presenting and intending to start in a trial a horse which was not that which was accepted to start when nominated by Mr Bridge.
3. The facts are set out in the Summary of Facts and these are not disputed.
4. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the Charge Rule Penalty provisions document.
5. Mr Cruickshank believed that this breach could be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end the RIU seek a fine of $450.00.
6. In support of this penalty he referred to previous decisions by the JCA which set the precedent and may be of some assistance.
7. In RIU v N.W. TILEY (10.08.13) this matter related to presentation of the wrong horse at the Cambridge Trials. The identification of the horses by the Trainer was incorrect from the time that he received them. Penalty imposed $450 fine.
8. RIU v K.L. McQUADE (21.11.13) this matter related to presentation of the wrong horse at the Cambridge Trials. There was an error when the horse was purchased. Penalty imposed $500 fine.
9. In both of the cases above it was agreed that a fine was appropriate and that the starting point for such a fine should be $800.
10. In this case Mr Cruickshank submitted there were some mitigating factors:-
a. Mr Bridge has been given the wrong horse by Windsor Park Stud.
b. Mr Bridge has no previous record involving similar type matters.
c. The race meeting was a Trial meeting (where horses may be unnamed and attend trials for education) as opposed to an actual race meeting.
d. Neither Mr Bridge nor Mr Campbell picked up the Windsor Park Stud error despite filing stable returns with NZTR.
e. Mr Bridge has accepted responsibility for his actions and has been totally co-operative throughout this investigation.
11. Mr Bridge’s culpability is at the lower end.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS BY MR J BRIDGE (by way of letter):
Mr Bridge said he admitted presenting the wrong horse to trial on 27 October at Te Aroha. He stated that he understood the RIU were recommending a $450 fine in line with the Tiley case and he agreed that was a suitable penalty. He confirmed that he was happy for the judicial committee to deal with the matter on the papers without his attendance and he had no submissions to make.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Mitigating factors are Mr Bridge’s admission of the breach and his clear record under this rule. We are satisfied there was no intent or malice on Mr Bridge’s part to deceive officials by presenting the wrong horse at an official trial meeting. While Windsor Park was negligent in sending the wrong horse to Mr Bridge it is his obligation to check the identification when the horse first enters the stable. The committee considers this to be an aggravating fact.
The committee consulted the JCA penalty guide which showed a starting point for a breach of this rule is $800. We are also aware of recent penalties pursuant to this rule which incurred fines in the vicinity of $500.
PENALTY:
After taking all the above into account we impose a fine of $500.
As the hearing was conducted on a race day there will be no order for costs.
R Seabrook A Dooley
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: