Levin RC – 14 September 2007 –

hearingid: 050afe61852dc6398cf22d85bce50cd7

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 14/09/2007

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Levin RC - 14 September 2007 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Mr Breslin appeared before the committee in relation to an alleged breach of Rule 302 (5) (a) of the Rules of Racing.    It was alleged that Mr Breslin employed a stablehand to work when that stablehand was unlicensed.

Mr Breslin appeared before the committee in relation to an alleged breach of Rule 302 (5) (a) of the Rules of Racing.

It was alleged that Mr Breslin employed a stablehand to work when that stablehand was unlicensed.

Mr Breslin denied the breach.

Mr Goodwin when making his submission stated that Mr Breslin had in his employment a stablehand that was unlicensed, and whom had not applied to be licensed. As such Mr Goodwin submitted Mr Breslin was in breach of the Rules.

Mr Breslin when addressing the committee confirmed that he had not applied for the licence as he was of the understanding that as NZ Racing was having issues with clearing the backload of licence applications and as such he had some time to have this task completed.

He expanded by stating that he had had a discussion last weekend with Assistant Stipendiary Steward M Barnsley with regard to other applications he had submitted and which remained unprocessed.

Mr Breslin told the committee that he was of the impression, that due to the significant delays in processing it was of little urgency to have the application in question submitted.

The committee called Mr Barnsley to render his account of the conversation he had with Mr Breslin, which in essence confirmed that he had advised that there were delays with the applications. He however also assured Mr Breslin that although not yet processed, the fact that he had applied for the other licences was sufficient for the requirements of the rule to be met and as such his staff were clear to work.

After considering the submissions made the committee is satisfied that Mr Breslin has breached 302(5) (a).

The Rule places a clear obligation on the trainer to ?apply? and on this occasion Mr Breslin has not complied with this requirement. A clear onus rested with him to submit the application. He has not done so and has therefore breached the provisions of the Rule.

We therefore find the charge proven.

Mr Goodwin, when addressing the committee, submitted that a modest fine was the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

Mr Breslin, in his submissions, stated that he believed the matter only warranted a warning.

When considering the question of penalty the committee are of the view that a fine is the appropriate penalty to be imposed for this breach.

Mr Breslin has had the opportunity to make application however he has mistakenly taken the view that a window of time existed to complete this application when in fact he had a duty to submit the application as soon as the employment commenced.

However, this is a new Rule and, notwithstanding that it has been well gazetted, some latitude should be accorded.

After taking all matters into account it is this committees finding that Mr Breslin be fined the sum of $50.00

RLH Neal,

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 302.5.a

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: