Non Raceday Inquiry – Mr P Harris

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE?S DECISION ON PENALTY AND COSTS

Information No. 0968 has been laid by Mr R. D. Scott, Racecourse Inspector, and alleges a breach of Rule 411(2) of the Rules of Racing by the defendant by Mr Harris. The charge reads as follows.

"I, the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 411(2) in that on the 7^th August 2004, being the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of the registered racehorse ENGLISH JAMES a 3 year old chestnut gelding by the sire Daggers Drawn from the dam Sweet Bouquet AND THAT English James was an acceptor for race four the Le Paillard at Prebbleton Farm Three Year Old race at the totalisator meeting being conducted by the Canterbury Jockey Club at Riccarton Racecourse on that day, AND THAT you were responsible for having the un-named 3 year old chestnut gelding racehorse by the sire Daggers Drawn from the dam Cassie Gray brought to the Riccarton Racecourse for the purpose of competing in such event as the horse English James AND THAT you thereby have committed a breach of Rule 411(2) and 1002(1)(a) 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."

Rule 411(2) reads as follows.

"(2) Where any horse has, or is deemed to have, been accepted for a race at a particular racecourse and some other horse is brought to that racecourse for the purpose of racing there as such first-mentioned horse every person who, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, was responsible for the horse having been brought to the racecourse for that purpose commits a breach of these rules. The Judicial Committee may, in its discretion, adjudge or declare such breach to be a serious racing offence."

Mr Harris attended this 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 Harris brought a horse to Riccarton Racecourse intending to start that horse as "English James". When the brands were checked it was found that the horse was not in fact "English James" and it was declared a late scratching from the race.

When interviewed about this matter Mr Harris explained that he received two horses into his stable at the same time. They were both owned by a Mr Gray who had asked Mr Kevin Myers to take four horses into his stable. Mr Myers took two of the horses and arranged for Mr Harris to take the other two. When they arrived on his property both horses had name tags. The horse being dealt with here bore the name tag of "English James". Mr Harris accepted, without question, that the horse was "English James" and it was also established that both Mr Myers and Mr Gray also mistakenly believed that the horse was in fact "English James".

Mr Harris was asked if he disputed any of the facts as presented. He did not.

Submissions on Penalty: Mr McKenzie presented and read (Exh "2") Submissions on Penalty and a copy of these is also attached to this decision. Firstly Mr McKenzie stated that this was not a case where the breach should be declared to be a serious racing offence. We agree.

Mr McKenzie also accepted that Mr Harris had been "lulled into a false belief" that the horse he was training was "English James" because of the incorrect name tag.

However it was the responsibility of every trainer to ensure that a horse taken to the races was correctly identified.

Mr McKenzie reminded the Committee of the rules set down in the Pitman case when assessing an appropriate penalty. These four rules deal with the aspects of punishment, deterrence, prevention of future offending, and the rehabilitation of the offender.

Mr McKenzie referred us to the decisions in NZTR v. Wheeler (1997), NZTR v. Anderton (1998 appeal decision), NZTR v. Wallace (2000) and NZTR v. Lock (2001). We have looked at these decisions and note that they all, with the exception of the Wheeler case, involved horses actually starting in a race, and the penalties of $1800-00, $2000-00 and $4000-00 (two charges) respectively reflects the seriousness of those breaches. In Wheeler a fine of $750-00 was imposed, and the circumstances of that case were closest to the present circumstances. It seems that Mr Wheeler had brought the wrong, but similar, horse to the races, but that the identities of the two horses involved were well known.

Mr Harris said that he had been misled by the name tag, but agreed that it was still his responsibility to check the identification of horses in his stables.

Having heard the facts relating to this charge, and having heard the submissions on penalty, we make the following findings.

--
--
1. Mr Harris was misled by a wrong name tag being attached to the horse.
--
0. The informant accepts that Mr Harris was "lulled" into a belief that the horse was "English James" and that the name tag was on the horse when Mr Harris received it.
--
1. Mr Harris had a responsibility, indeed there is a strong obligation, to ensure that this horse was correctly identified before it went to a race meeting.
--
2. Mr Harris has pleaded guilty to this breach of the rules.
--
3. The offence is very much at the lower end of the scale, and we believe, is not as serious as the four cases referred to us by Mr McKenzie.
--
4. With respect to the Pitman guidelines we believe that the matters of deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation are not relevant because of the unusual circumstances of the case.

Taking all the above matters into account we have decided that an appropriate

penalty is a fine of $600-00. There will also be an order that Mr Harris pays costs of $250-00 to the Judicial Control Authority, and costs of $250-00 to New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.