Appeal RIU v S Clark – Decision as to Costs dated 5 April 2016 – Chair, Mr M McKechnie

hearingid: 3fbbae2e3581833fff81568754561090

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 07/04/2016

hearing_title: Appeal RIU v S Clark - Decision as to Costs dated 5 April 2016 - Chair, Mr M McKechnie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER Greyhound Racing New Zealand

Rules of Racing

STEPHEN CLARK

APPELLANT

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

RESPONDENT

Judicial Committee: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Mr Adrian Dooley

Mr Stephen Clark, Appellant

Mr Ross Neal, Chief Co-Stipendiary Steward on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit

Ms Karen Attwood, Registrar

DECISION OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AS TO COSTS

DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Non-Raceday Judicial Committee heard Mr Clark’s appeal in Auckland on 11th March 2016. A reserved decision issued dated the 21st day of March 2016. Mr Clark’s appeal was upheld.

1.2 In paragraph 6.2 of the reserved decision the Committee ruled that if either party believed that an award of costs was appropriate submissions in that regard were to be filed with the Executive Officer of the JCA not later than 4.00p.m. on Tuesday 29th March 2016. No submissions have been received from either party.

2. WHEN IS A COSTS AWARD APPROPRIATE

2.1 Where a party is represented by legal counsel and has been successful in his or her appeal a costs award would ordinarily follow. Here Mr Clark represented himself. He has not sought costs.

2.2 The Committee is conscious that Mr Clark’s appeal was successful.

2.3 As explained in the reserved decision of the 21st March this year the presentation of the appeal by the RIU was not assisted by the absence of a number of personnel who played an important part in the events which led up to and resulted in the suspension of Mr Clark’s greyhounds. While the Committee cannot speculate as to whether the presence of those persons would have led to a different outcome their absence from the appeal hearing was entirely unsatisfactory.

2.4 In the absence of any application by Mr Clark for costs there will be no costs award in his favour.

2.5 The Judicial Control Authority (JCA) has incurred considerable expense in assembling the Committee, holding a telephone conference, conducting the hearing and thereafter delivering a detailed decision.

2.6 In the circumstances outlined it is appropriate that the RIU make some contribution towards the costs incurred by the JCA. The figure which the Committee has determined should be paid is a long way short of the total costs which the JCA has incurred. It is however, in the Committee’s view, appropriate that there be some contribution towards those costs. The appropriate figure is $1,200.00 and the RIU is ordered to pay that sum in costs to the JCA.

DATED this 5th day of April 2016

Murray McKechnie

Chairman

(Signed pursuant to Rule 91.14)

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: