Non Raceday Inquiry 26 October 2013 – Decision dated 1 November 2013
ID: JCA18143
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
INFORMATION NUMBER: 5569
INFORMANT: RACING INTEGRITY UNIT - Mr R Scott, Racecourse Investigator
RESPONDENT: Mr B D Court - Licensed Trainer
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Richard Seabrook, Chair - Mr Stewart Ching, Committee Member
VENUE: Riccarton Racecourse
DATE: 26 October 2013
PERSONS PRESENT who were called during the hearing: Mr N McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
RULE: Rule 658 and 802 (1) (a)
PLEA: Admitted
CHARGE:
The defendant, Brian David Court, appeared before the JCA on a charge filed against him by the informant, Mr Robin Scott. The details of the charge are set out below and come pursuant to information no. 5569 and rules 658 and 802 (1) (a).
The defendant who appeared on his own behalf informed the committee he understood the nature of the charge and the hearing to be conducted. He confirmed he had received a copy if the charge and the relevant rules. The defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge.
Mr Scott produced a written authority to file the information from the chief executive of NZTR. This authority comes pursuant to rule 903 (2) (d).
The charge reads as follows:
That on 2 October 2013 Canterbury Racing North Canterbury held trials at Rangiora Race Course and that Mr B Court, being a licensed trainer, was the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of an unnamed four year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of BEIJING SOY. The afore mentioned horse was an acceptor for heat 2, the 4 year old Catch weight 800 metre event on that day and that he was responsible for having the unnamed 4 year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of SWIFTSURE brought to the Rangiora race course for the purpose of competing in such event in place of the BEIJING SOY filly. He has thereby committed a breach of the 3rd appendix (regulations for trials) pursuant to rules 658 and 802 (1) (a) of the rules of racing and that he is liable for the penalty / penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to rule 803 (1) of the said rules.
SUMMARY OF FACTS by Mr R Scott, Racecourse Investigator:
1 On Tuesday 2 October 2013, the Canterbury Racing North Canterbury Trials were held at the Rangiora Racecourse.
2 The records for that meeting show, heat two on the programme was a 4 year old Catch weight 800 meter event.
3 Horse number 10 in that race was shown in the programme as being an un-named 4 year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of BEIJING SOY.
4 The brands were listed as being Judder Bars over RH and 48 over 9; the micro chip was listed as being 985125000053018
5 The trainer for the horse was shown as Mr Brian David COURT.
6 Prior to the trial the horse was inspected as is customary in such cases by the Trials Officials. It was discovered that the horse being inspected in several respects did not match the identification on the documents held by the Officials.
7 The cipher brand on the horse being inspected read, Judder Bar Over RH and 10 over 9 and the micro chip read 985125000000624, these were not in accord with the papers.
8 The horse being inspected was in fact a four year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of SWIFTSURE.
9 It was later established that the two horses were bred by the same Stud, the horse being from the same Sire, the brands only difference being the numerical number and both were bay fillies.
Both were purchased by Mr Court.
10 The SWIFTSURE filly was broken in and prepared for racing and nominated for the Rangiora Trials in the belief it was the BEIJING SOY filly. This horse was earlier disposed of by Mr Court thinking it was the SWIFTSURE filly.
11 On the 12 May 2012 Mr Court completed a Stable Return in respect to BEIJING SOY and filed it with NZTR.
12 When spoken to Mr Court stated he had at no stage made any endeavour to confirm the identity of the two fillies by comparing the brands and micro chip number with New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing records.
SUBMISSIONS by Mr B Court:
Mr Court told the committee this was a simple case of human error. He explained both fillies were bred by the same stud, were both bay fillies and arrived at his stable on the same day. He explained the brands on both horses were the same with only the top figures differing from one another. He said both horses were unnamed. Mr Court submitted that the mistake caused no gain to anyone else and no one was put at risk. He said they had now put procedures in place so that this type of error would not happen again. He added that the trainers section of the NZTR web site should be easier to access to get information for horses in training.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY Mr R Scott:
A breach of the provisions of the Third Appendix and Rule 658 and 802 (1) (a) relates to when the wrong horses is presented at the Trials
It is submitted by RIU that the circumstances in this case do not warrant this committee to consider this matter as a serious racing offence. It is evident from the facts that Mr Court has been lulled into a false belief regards the identity with the horses. The two 4 year old Fillies being of similar colour and brandings were sent to him to train. One was disposed of some time ago.
The fact of the matter is however, it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of a horse, to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accord with the records held by NZTR.
It is true to say that once upon a time the trainer received a copy of the registration papers from the owner, and from this document he was expected to confirm the identity of each horse, in his care.
These were presented at the first race day start for the horse. For the past several years however we have all moved with the times.
Too much publicity was given to the new policy of all horses being accessible on the NZTR website to compare identity of any horse taken into the care of any person including all trainers.
All horses are checked by RIU on race day to confirm identity. It is also Trial day procedure to both scan the micro chip where applicable and check the brands of horses running at the Trials.
It is however still the obligation of the trainer to confirm identity prior to taking a horse into training, and entering and taking a horse to the races. Such provisions also apply to the trials.
Horses that are entered for and start in trials must be the horse that is described in the official card.
The official card is created from information generated from the NZTR records, and includes the details of identity of the horse. Failure to meet these requirements will result in a number of issues that affects the integrity of racing.
Mr Court operates a racing stable at Broadfield near Christchurch.
He is aware that attention to detail in the operation of a training establishment is very important.
It is submitted by RIU that a penalty for this offence, warrants a penalty in keeping with the responsibility placed upon the trainer, in this case Mr Court.
The principle of sentencing will be well known to you, as quoted in the decision of the P Appeal Page 116 Prominent Judicial Decisions Vol II Sept 1994.
It is submitted on behalf of RIU that this matter should best be dealt with by way of a fine.
Mr Court has been totally co-operative throughout RIU inquiries. His plea of guilty negated the need to call witnesses.
He has a good record as a trainer, and this I am sure will be a one off instance.
However the fact remains, he was very negligent and any penalty must reflect a deterrent to others who might fail to properly identify all horses in their care. It is fortunate this instance occurred at a trial meeting rather than a race meeting.
The size of the field, the effect on punters and the Club holding a meeting has not been adversely affected.
RIU submits a penalty by way of a fine in the order of $500 plus any costs incurred by the JCA.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY by Mr B Court:
Mr Court stated the racing industry was going through difficult times and his mistake only warranted a reprimand. He said this was because the recent incident where cones were left on the track which resulted in a race being declared void concluded with those responsible being verbally reprimanded.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
The committee has carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented.
Firstly the committee is satisfied there was no malicious intent by Mr Court to gain an advantage by entering the wrong horse in this particular trial. Accordingly we concur with Mr Scott’s submission that this is not a serious racing offence.
We have some sympathy for Mr Court in that the fillies were virtually identical and had similar brands. However, this should have made it more imperative for him to identify each horse as they both arrived at the same time without identification.
Although we find this a case of human error it is nevertheless one of negligence on Mr Court’s part. It is the obligation and duty of every trainer to confirm identity prior to taking a horse into training.
PENALTY:
In assessing penalty the committee has taken into account Mr Court’s admission of the breach, his good record and his full cooperation with the stewards.
After researching previous penalties for similar breaches of this rule and in the interests of consistency we find a fine to be an appropriate penalty. Accordingly, we impose a fine of $500 and as this enquiry is held on a race day there will be no order for costs.
Richard Seabrook Stewart Ching
Chairman Committee Member
1 November 2013
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 06/11/2013
Publish Date: 06/11/2013
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: f301c5a8aba09fb8831ad4ec208562f5
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 06/11/2013
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry 26 October 2013 - Decision dated 1 November 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
INFORMATION NUMBER: 5569
INFORMANT: RACING INTEGRITY UNIT - Mr R Scott, Racecourse Investigator
RESPONDENT: Mr B D Court - Licensed Trainer
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Richard Seabrook, Chair - Mr Stewart Ching, Committee Member
VENUE: Riccarton Racecourse
DATE: 26 October 2013
PERSONS PRESENT who were called during the hearing: Mr N McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
RULE: Rule 658 and 802 (1) (a)
PLEA: Admitted
CHARGE:
The defendant, Brian David Court, appeared before the JCA on a charge filed against him by the informant, Mr Robin Scott. The details of the charge are set out below and come pursuant to information no. 5569 and rules 658 and 802 (1) (a).
The defendant who appeared on his own behalf informed the committee he understood the nature of the charge and the hearing to be conducted. He confirmed he had received a copy if the charge and the relevant rules. The defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge.
Mr Scott produced a written authority to file the information from the chief executive of NZTR. This authority comes pursuant to rule 903 (2) (d).
The charge reads as follows:
That on 2 October 2013 Canterbury Racing North Canterbury held trials at Rangiora Race Course and that Mr B Court, being a licensed trainer, was the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of an unnamed four year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of BEIJING SOY. The afore mentioned horse was an acceptor for heat 2, the 4 year old Catch weight 800 metre event on that day and that he was responsible for having the unnamed 4 year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of SWIFTSURE brought to the Rangiora race course for the purpose of competing in such event in place of the BEIJING SOY filly. He has thereby committed a breach of the 3rd appendix (regulations for trials) pursuant to rules 658 and 802 (1) (a) of the rules of racing and that he is liable for the penalty / penalties which may be imposed upon him pursuant to rule 803 (1) of the said rules.
SUMMARY OF FACTS by Mr R Scott, Racecourse Investigator:
1 On Tuesday 2 October 2013, the Canterbury Racing North Canterbury Trials were held at the Rangiora Racecourse.
2 The records for that meeting show, heat two on the programme was a 4 year old Catch weight 800 meter event.
3 Horse number 10 in that race was shown in the programme as being an un-named 4 year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of BEIJING SOY.
4 The brands were listed as being Judder Bars over RH and 48 over 9; the micro chip was listed as being 985125000053018
5 The trainer for the horse was shown as Mr Brian David COURT.
6 Prior to the trial the horse was inspected as is customary in such cases by the Trials Officials. It was discovered that the horse being inspected in several respects did not match the identification on the documents held by the Officials.
7 The cipher brand on the horse being inspected read, Judder Bar Over RH and 10 over 9 and the micro chip read 985125000000624, these were not in accord with the papers.
8 The horse being inspected was in fact a four year old bay filly by BAHHARE out of SWIFTSURE.
9 It was later established that the two horses were bred by the same Stud, the horse being from the same Sire, the brands only difference being the numerical number and both were bay fillies.
Both were purchased by Mr Court.
10 The SWIFTSURE filly was broken in and prepared for racing and nominated for the Rangiora Trials in the belief it was the BEIJING SOY filly. This horse was earlier disposed of by Mr Court thinking it was the SWIFTSURE filly.
11 On the 12 May 2012 Mr Court completed a Stable Return in respect to BEIJING SOY and filed it with NZTR.
12 When spoken to Mr Court stated he had at no stage made any endeavour to confirm the identity of the two fillies by comparing the brands and micro chip number with New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing records.
SUBMISSIONS by Mr B Court:
Mr Court told the committee this was a simple case of human error. He explained both fillies were bred by the same stud, were both bay fillies and arrived at his stable on the same day. He explained the brands on both horses were the same with only the top figures differing from one another. He said both horses were unnamed. Mr Court submitted that the mistake caused no gain to anyone else and no one was put at risk. He said they had now put procedures in place so that this type of error would not happen again. He added that the trainers section of the NZTR web site should be easier to access to get information for horses in training.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY Mr R Scott:
A breach of the provisions of the Third Appendix and Rule 658 and 802 (1) (a) relates to when the wrong horses is presented at the Trials
It is submitted by RIU that the circumstances in this case do not warrant this committee to consider this matter as a serious racing offence. It is evident from the facts that Mr Court has been lulled into a false belief regards the identity with the horses. The two 4 year old Fillies being of similar colour and brandings were sent to him to train. One was disposed of some time ago.
The fact of the matter is however, it is the responsibility of the trainer who is in charge of a horse, to ensure that he is training the correct horse, and that the identity of every horse in his care is in accord with the records held by NZTR.
It is true to say that once upon a time the trainer received a copy of the registration papers from the owner, and from this document he was expected to confirm the identity of each horse, in his care.
These were presented at the first race day start for the horse. For the past several years however we have all moved with the times.
Too much publicity was given to the new policy of all horses being accessible on the NZTR website to compare identity of any horse taken into the care of any person including all trainers.
All horses are checked by RIU on race day to confirm identity. It is also Trial day procedure to both scan the micro chip where applicable and check the brands of horses running at the Trials.
It is however still the obligation of the trainer to confirm identity prior to taking a horse into training, and entering and taking a horse to the races. Such provisions also apply to the trials.
Horses that are entered for and start in trials must be the horse that is described in the official card.
The official card is created from information generated from the NZTR records, and includes the details of identity of the horse. Failure to meet these requirements will result in a number of issues that affects the integrity of racing.
Mr Court operates a racing stable at Broadfield near Christchurch.
He is aware that attention to detail in the operation of a training establishment is very important.
It is submitted by RIU that a penalty for this offence, warrants a penalty in keeping with the responsibility placed upon the trainer, in this case Mr Court.
The principle of sentencing will be well known to you, as quoted in the decision of the P Appeal Page 116 Prominent Judicial Decisions Vol II Sept 1994.
It is submitted on behalf of RIU that this matter should best be dealt with by way of a fine.
Mr Court has been totally co-operative throughout RIU inquiries. His plea of guilty negated the need to call witnesses.
He has a good record as a trainer, and this I am sure will be a one off instance.
However the fact remains, he was very negligent and any penalty must reflect a deterrent to others who might fail to properly identify all horses in their care. It is fortunate this instance occurred at a trial meeting rather than a race meeting.
The size of the field, the effect on punters and the Club holding a meeting has not been adversely affected.
RIU submits a penalty by way of a fine in the order of $500 plus any costs incurred by the JCA.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY by Mr B Court:
Mr Court stated the racing industry was going through difficult times and his mistake only warranted a reprimand. He said this was because the recent incident where cones were left on the track which resulted in a race being declared void concluded with those responsible being verbally reprimanded.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
The committee has carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented.
Firstly the committee is satisfied there was no malicious intent by Mr Court to gain an advantage by entering the wrong horse in this particular trial. Accordingly we concur with Mr Scott’s submission that this is not a serious racing offence.
We have some sympathy for Mr Court in that the fillies were virtually identical and had similar brands. However, this should have made it more imperative for him to identify each horse as they both arrived at the same time without identification.
Although we find this a case of human error it is nevertheless one of negligence on Mr Court’s part. It is the obligation and duty of every trainer to confirm identity prior to taking a horse into training.
PENALTY:
In assessing penalty the committee has taken into account Mr Court’s admission of the breach, his good record and his full cooperation with the stewards.
After researching previous penalties for similar breaches of this rule and in the interests of consistency we find a fine to be an appropriate penalty. Accordingly, we impose a fine of $500 and as this enquiry is held on a race day there will be no order for costs.
Richard Seabrook Stewart Ching
Chairman Committee Member
1 November 2013
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: