Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v KL McQuade 21 November 2013 – Decision dated 25 November 2013

hearingid: ee3366047f6a7103a895af2ebebf51e0

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 30/11/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v KL McQuade 21 November 2013 - Decision dated 25 November 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

HELD AT MATAMATA RACECOURSE

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A2903

BETWEEN Mr TR CARMICHAEL, Chief Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND MRS KL McQUADE – Licensed Class A Trainer

Defendant

Date of Hearing: 21 November 2013

Venue: Matamata Racecourse

Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman - Mr A Godsalve, Committee Member

Present: Mr TR Carmichael, Mrs KL McQuade, Mr B Jones (Registrar)

Date of Decision: 25 November 2013

The Charge:

The Informant, Mr R Carmichael, Racing Investigator, alleged that on the 8th day of October 2013 Mrs KL McQuade was the trainer and person responsible for the nomination and presentation of the unnamed horse, purported to be a CECCONI - BLOWAMANDOWN 3 yr old filly, to compete in Heat 11 at a trials meeting conducted by the Cambridge Jockey Club at Cambridge Racecourse when, upon inspection, was found to be the incorrect filly; being in breach of Clause 4 (a) of the Third Appendix (Regulations For Trials) and Rule 404(2) of the Rules of Racing, and that Mrs KL McQuade is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 803 (1) of the said Rules.

Rule 404(2) provides: 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.

Mrs McQuade acknowledged she had received a copy of the charge and the relevant Rules. She told the Committee that she understood them and admitted the breach of the said Rules. Mrs McQuade accepted that the summary of facts presented were a correct account of the incident.

Evidence for the Informant:

The facts presented by Mr R Carmichael, Chief Racing Investigator, are not in dispute and are summarised as follows:

All matters preliminary to this hearing have been properly attended to, including:

• An authority to lodge the Information.

• The serving and filing of the Information.

• The appointment of this Judicial Committee.

1. Mrs McQuade is an experienced Class A Licensed Trainer.

2. On 8 October 2013 she was the person responsible for the nomination and presentation of an unnamed 3 yr old filly, purported to be by CECCONI out of BLOWAMANDOWN, to compete in Heat 11 at a Trials Meeting conducted by the Cambridge Jockey Club at Cambridge. A copy of the entry in the trials program is produced.

3. Prior to attending the trials, the Stewards obtained the identification sheets from NZTR. The identification/brand sheet for Heat 11 is produced.

EXHIBIT [9].

The CECCONI – BLOWAMANDOWN filly is recorded with the brands JE and 2 over 0.

4. Upon inspection by the Stewards prior to racing it was found that the filly which was presented by Mrs McQuade was branded JE and 18 over 0.

5. From the brands and microchip, the Stewards established that the horse presented at the Trials was in fact the unnamed SIROCCO – GOLD BERRY 3 yr old filly. The Brand and DNA Type Identification Certificates for both horses are produced. EXHIBIT [10] and EXHIBIT [11].

6. The filly that was presented was photographed by the Stewards.

EXHIBIT [12].

7. As a consequence, the filly was scratched from the trial, with the entry fee ($115) being forfeited.

8. Subsequent enquiries confirm that both horses were bred by Mrs B E Brough at Huntly. Mrs Brough said that she bred two almost identical chestnut fillies. She entered what she thought was the correct filly, (CECCONI – BLOWAMANDOWN), in a bloodstock sale conducted by Elders at Wanganui in April 2012, but did not check the brands before the filly was taken to Wanganui for the sale. The second filly was exported to China.

9. Mrs McQuade advised that she had reviewed the entries for the Elders sale and had singled out the CECCONI – BLOWAMANDOWN filly as she had trained a relation of the filly during its racing career. She attended the sale with the express purpose of buying that filly. She said that she believed that, as is usual with bloodstock sales, the filly would be identified, first by the Vendor and secondly by the ring master at the sales venue.

10. Mrs McQuade did not have any documentation which showed the brand of the filly she had bought. Subsequent to the sale she received a detailed invoice EXHIBIT [13], and the partially completed Notice of Change of Ownership – EXHIBIT [14]. Neither of these documents included the brand.

11. Mrs McQuade subsequently notified NZTR that the horse was in training. This was done on-line with no brands being required on the NZTR template for that purpose. The Brand and DNA Identification Certificate (EXHIBIT 10) is a NZTR document and is not routinely provided the Purchaser subsequent to a sale.

12. The Informant accepts that there has not been any attempt by Mrs McQuade to deceive and that a genuine mistake has lead to the incorrect filly being purchased and subsequently trained ready for racing.

13. In summing up Mr Carmichael suggested that NZTR could alter their change of ownership form to enable DNA and other relevant identification information.

Evidence for the Defendant:

Mrs McQuade informed the Committee that she went to the Elders Wanganui Livestock Sale and purchased what she believed to be a CECCONI filly on the 15th of April 2012. Prior to the filly trialling Mrs McQuade filled out a stable return where the branding error was not identified by NZTR. Mrs McQuade said she entered the CECCONI filly for a Trial and was “gutted” to find out what she thought was a CECCONI filly was in fact a SIROCCO filly.

Mrs McQuade added that it had been a costly exercise taking into account the costs involved with the filly and forfeiting the trial fees as well.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mrs McQuade acknowledged that she did not verify the brands of the subject horse. Mrs McQuade advised us that she did not have a system in place at her stables to check the identification of any new horse that arrives at her stables.

Decision:

As Mrs McQuade admitted the breach we find the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty by Mr Carmichael:

1. Ordinarily the starting point for a breach of Rule 404 is a fine of $800. This is of course a matter for the Judicial Committee, taking into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances of the particular case.

2. In the case before the Tribunal the Judicial Committee is entitled to draw a distinction between a trials meeting (where horses may be unnamed and attend trials for education) and an actual race meeting.

3. Mrs McQuade has no previous record involving matters such as this. She has been totally co-operative throughout this investigation. While she accepts that it is her responsibility to ensure that horses are correctly identified she also believes that both the Vendor and the firms conducting these bloodstock auctions also have a duty of care to ensure that the correct horse is presented for sale. On that basis the Judicial Committee would be entitled to consider a fine less than the presently accepted starting point of $800.

4. PREVIOUS CASES:

NZTR and Mr R (6 June 2012).
NZTR and Mr T (16 August 2013).
HRNZ and Mr S (23 June 2013).

The Judicial Committee will note that the penalties imposed in these cases range from $450 to $500.

Copies of those written decisions were submitted.

Submissions on penalty by Mrs McQuade:

Mrs McQuade submitted that the mistake occurred when the filly was taken out of the paddock to go to the Sales. She stated that she purchased the filly from a supposedly reputable firm and expected them to get it right.

Mrs McQuade did not make submissions on a monetary penalty.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The mitigating factors are Mrs McQuade's admission of the breach, her clear record under this Rule, her genuine remorse which was evident during the hearing and her co–operation with the RIU. We are satisfied that there was no intent or malice on Mrs McQuade's part to deceive officials by presenting the wrong horse to an official trial meeting.

The aggravating fact was that Mrs McQuade did not independently verify the identification of the subject horse via NZTR website at the time the horse first entered her stables.

The Committee referred to the JCA penalty guide which showed a starting point of $800 fine. We also referred to the JCA database which showed recent penalties under this Rule, they all incurred fines in the vicinity of $500.

Therefore taking into account the mitigating factors we consider an appropriate penalty to be a $500 fine.

Penalty:

On the question of costs, the RIU and JCA sought no costs as this hearing was held prior to a race meeting.

Accordingly, Mrs McQuade was fined the sum of $500.

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: