Non Raceday Inquiry – Mr AM Slade

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE?S DECISION ON PENALTY AND COSTS

Information No. 0969 has been laid by Mr R. D. Scott, Racecourse Inspector, and alleges a breach of Rule 420(1) of the Rules of Racing by the defendant by Mr Slade. The charge reads as follows.

"I, the above named informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 420(1) in that the horse ZANZIBELLE was purchased by you at the horse sales conducted by New Zealand Bloodstock Ltd, on the 11^th day of May 2004, AND THAT a notice of change of ownership was sent to you signed on behalf of the vendor by New Zealand Bloodstock Ltd, for completion by you, to be forwarded to the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing within fourteen days of the sale, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 420(1) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, AND THAT it was not until the 11^th day of August 2004 at the race meeting of the Canterbury Jockey Club, where the horse ZANZIBELLE was recorded in the official card under the name of the Zanzibelle Syndicate, when in fact the horse was owned by you, that such notice of change of ownership had not been effected, AND THAT by virtue of the provisions of Rule 420(6) ZANZIBELLE was scratched from race ten The Hospitality Association Canterbury Branch National Apprentice Jockey Championship, in accordance with the provision of Rule 420(1), AND THAT for such a breach of the Rules you are liable for the penalty/penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to Rule 1003 of the Rules of Racing."

The relevant clauses of Rule 420 read as follows.

"(1) Notice of any change in the ownership of a horse shall be given in the prescribed form to the Chief Executive within fourteen days after such change is effected, and before the horse starts in any race, and where the change of ownership occurs by way of the sale of a horse which at the time of such sale is subject to a contingency, notice of such change shall forthwith be given by the seller to any person entitled to claim any benefit under such contingency.

Provided that where any such change takes place during the currency of any Race Meeting, or within the period of seventy-two hours immediately preceding the commencement of such Race Meeting such notice may be given the Secretary of the Club conducting such meeting, for transmission to the Chief Executive, and when so given and accepted by the Secretary of the said Club shall operate as notice to the Chief Executive, and shall be deemed for the purposes of such race meeting only to have been accepted by the Board."

"(6) Subject to the proviso to sub-Rule (1) hereof no horse the ownership of which changes shall thereafter be eligible to start in a race until the notice of such change of ownership has been accepted by the Board. Any person who starts such a horse in a race before the notice of such change of ownership is so accepted commits a breach of these Rules.

In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, every horse sold or leased shall be deemed to be sold or leased with its engagements."

Mr Slade attended the hearing and he admitted this breach of the Rules.

Mr McKenzie presented and read a summary of the facts of this matter (Exh "1"),

and a copy is attached to this decision.

Briefly stated Mr Slade bought Zanzibelle on 11 May 2004 and a signed notice of change of ownership was sent to him by the vendors on or about the same date. Mr Slade failed to send the notice of change of ownership, and the prescribed fee, to the Chief Executive as required.

On 11 August 2004 Zanzibelle was entered for a race at the Canterbury Jockey Club's meeting being held that day. When Mr Slade asked that the colours carried by Zanzibelle be changed it was noticed that Zanzibelle was still registered as being owned by the "Zanzibelle Syndicate", the previous owner. In compliance with Rule 420(6) Zanzibelle was scratched from the race by Mr Slade.

When interviewed by Racecourse Inspector R. D. Scott (Exh "2") on 11 August 2004 Mr Slade explained that it was a complete oversight, and that the change of ownership papers were still in his desk at Slade Farm.

After hearing the summary Mr Slade was asked if he disagreed with any of its contents. He did not.

Submissions on Penalty: Mr McKenzie presented (Exh "3") and read Submissions on Penalty, and a copy of these submissions are also attached to this decision. Mr McKenzie emphasised the importance of there being an accurate record of who owned racehorses. It was also accepted that there was no malicious or devious intent on the part of Mr Slade, and that he took this whole issue seriously and co-operated fully during the enquiry.

Mr McKenzie submitted that a penalty by way of a fine would be appropriate in this case, and that to be consistent with recent cases that fine should be in the order of $750-00, together with an order for costs.

Mr Slade was asked for his submissions on penalty. He said that any monetary penalty was not as important to him as the embarrassment he felt for the trouble his oversight had caused for the Racing Club, Jockey and other persons who had been affected.

When making his submissions on penalty Mr McKenzie reminded the Committee of the principles involved when sentencing, as set out in New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing v. Pitman, which are as follows.

--
--
1. Firstly the penalty imposed must punish the offender for his wrongdoing.
--

There is a need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing and to this end the sentence must be a realistic punishment but not excessively retributive.

--

- Secondly the sentence must deter other persons in the racing industry from committing like offences. Put in another way persons involved in the racing industry should be given a clear signal that offending in this way will not be tolerated. The penalty must deter the person charged from re-offending and it must also deter others.

--
2. Thirdly there is a preventative element in the sentence in those cases where the

defendant is effectively prevented from offending by the imposition of a suspension of his or her licence or through disqualification.

- Finally there is the rehabilitation of the defendant. The aim of imposing an

appropriate sentence is to induce the defendant to abide by the rules in the future. The relevance of attempting to rehabilitate the defendant depends largely on his or her history of offending. That is to say a repeat offender would not receive the same consideration as a first offender.

We agree that the first principle does apply in this case, and that there should be a penalty in keeping with penalties for similar breaches of the Rules.

The deterrent aspect of the penalty will also be met by the amount of the fine.

The third principle does not, we believe, apply in this case. We accept Mr Slade's explanation that this was an oversight which is unlikely to be repeated. We accept that there was no malicious or devious intent by Mr Slade.

Finally, and for the same reasons as above, we see no need to consider the rehabilitation aspect

Mr McKenzie referred the Committee to three previous similar cases (Exh "4") where the fines imposed had ranged between $250-00 and $1750-00. We have looked at these decisions.

The decision in Williams v. Harris (2000) related to six charges which resulted in a fine of $1750-00 plus costs of $1000-00. In addition there was an order that a horse be disqualified from its placing in two races. We are satisfied that the totality of the breaches of the rules committed in this case were far more serious than in the present case.

The decision in NZTR v. Wheeler (1999) dealt with one charge and resulted in a fine of $250-00 and costs of $250-00. There were special circumstances existing in this case which do not exist in the present case.

The decision in NZTR v. Collett (1999) dealt with circumstances which were much the same as in the present case in that the defendant simply forgot to change the ownership. In this case a fine of $750-00 was imposed plus an order for costs of $250-00.

We have taken into account Mr Slade's guilty plea and what we believe to be his genuine regret and embarrassment over this breach of the rules.

Taking all the above matters into account we have decided that an appropriate penalty is a fine of $750-00 and Mr Slade is fined this amount. There will also be an order that Mr Slade pay costs of $250-00 to the Judicial Control Authority for Racing and costs of $250-00 to New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.