Non Raceday Inquiry – NZGRA v D D Schofield – Decision relating to penalty – Decision dated 2 June 2011
ID: JCA15707
Decision:
Judicial Committee:
Mr BJ Scott (Chairman)
Mr BJ Rowe (Committee)
Mr BJ Scott (Chairman)
Mr BJ Rowe (Committee)
Present:
Mr C George – by submissions on behalf of GRNZ
Mr AJ Ryan – by submissions on behalf of Mr DD Schofield
Mr C George – by submissions on behalf of GRNZ
Mr AJ Ryan – by submissions on behalf of Mr DD Schofield
Date of Hearing:
29 March 2011
29 March 2011
Venue:
Manukau Greyhound Raceway
Manukau Greyhound Raceway
DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Introduction:
1.1 On the 20th of April 2011 the Committee delivered its decision on the charge brought against Mr Schofield for breach of Rule 88.1 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Rules (the Rules by GRNZ). The breach which the Committee found proved was that on the 11th of January 2011 Mr Schofield misconducted himself by contacting Licensed Trainer S Clarke via telephone and verbally abusing and threatening him. The words used by Mr Schofield were set out in the charge. The circumstances in which the breach of Rule 88.1 occurred and our reason for finding the charge proved are set out in our decision of the 20th of April 2011 and except to the extent necessary for present purposes are not repeated again here.
1.2 There is no need to repeat the evidence in detail other than to say that we found the following facts were accepted:
(a) Mr Schofield did make some effort to check to see if his greyhound VIOLENT THUNDER was eligible for the relevant race at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club Meeting on the 13th of January 2011.
(b) That VIOLENT THUNDER was entered in the field for that race.
(c) VIOLENT THUNDER was not eligible to start in the race.
(d) The eligibility of VIOLENT THUNDER was drawn to the attention of GRNZ by Mr Clark.
(e) The field was redrawn and VIOLENT THUNDER was transferred out of that race and into a different class race.
(f) Mr Schofield telephoned Mr Clark and used the words complained of. There was some dispute by Mr Schofield that he used one of the words complained of but we were satisfied that he used those words.
1.3 At the conclusion of our Decision of 20th of April 2011 we put in place a timetable for submissions on penalty and costs to be made by GRNZ and Mr Schofield. Submissions have now been received from both parties and we are in a position to deliver our decision on those remaining issues.
1.4 On behalf of GRNZ Mr George submitted as follows:
The nature of the charges entitles the Committee to view them in a serious manner.
It’s paramount that the Committee considers a significant penalty to deter other participants from acting in the same way against the officials and other participants.
Mr Schofield displayed threatening and inappropriate behaviour against two people participating in greyhound racing. The RIU submits that in parts of Mr Schofield’s communication Mr Clarke felt offended and threatened.
Participants irrespective of their concerns cannot “take matters into their own hands” and threaten and offend other participants. There is a proper way of handling matters of concern.
Mr Schofield intended to handle it his way by acting aggressively. He went out of his way to contact Mr Clarke. There is clear intent.
Mr Clark who only made enquiries about matters within the Rules of Racing as he is entitled to was subject to an aggressive and threatening approach from Mr Schofield. A participant should be allowed to make inquiries without the fear of inappropriate behaviour by other members of the industry.
Mr Schofield fell well below the level of expectation for conduct placed on licensed people in the industry.
Mr Schofield had breached this rule previously and Mr George attached copies of the previous decisions involving Mr Schofield. He further submitted that Mr Schofield had to accept that his conduct is required to be professional and appropriate. Previous warnings and penalties had not worked to deter Mr Schofield from breaching the rules once again.
GRNZ via their magazine to the Industry warned all participants that any improper conduct or unprofessional conduct mounting to a breach of the misconduct rules will not be tolerated. This was in the January 2009 edition.
Mr Schofield provided to this Committee a copy of a decision dated 14 January 2009 in respect to a charge of Misconduct by Mr M.
Mr M admitted a breach of the Misconduct rules for abuse directed at other persons and was disqualified for a period of 3 months.
The Chairman (Mr EF Doherty) of that Committee stated in his decision the following:
“Any behaviour involving threats of violence is a serious matter and clearly warrants a heavy penalty which might well include disqualification in appropriate cases. The message is obviously necessary”.
Mr Schofield was reminded and warned along with all participants that conduct of this nature would possibly carry serious consequences.
It’s imperative that people in the Industry can carry out their functions without fear and Racing needs to know that behaviour like that displayed by Mr Schofield will not and cannot be tolerated for the betterment of Racing.
Mr George submitted that a deterrent sentence is required for the Integrity of Racing. He said that it was important that the Committee imposes a penalty that will enhance the image and conduct of Greyhound Racing in New Zealand.
Mr George than asked the Committee to consider the following aspects which in his view were paramount for imposing the appropriate penalty,
(i) A very serious breach of the Rules of Racing.
(ii) The intent of Mr Schofield’s actions.
(iii) Threatening nature.
(iv) Misconduct towards a fellow Licensed Trainer.
(v) Conduct record.
(vi) Warnings by GRNZ.
(vii) To deter others in the racing for similar conduct.
(ii) The intent of Mr Schofield’s actions.
(iii) Threatening nature.
(iv) Misconduct towards a fellow Licensed Trainer.
(v) Conduct record.
(vi) Warnings by GRNZ.
(vii) To deter others in the racing for similar conduct.
Mr George submitted that a disqualification of Mr Schofield for a period of no less than 6 months for the charge should be imposed.
1.5 Mr Ryan presented submissions on behalf of Mr Schofield and his submissions can be summarized as follows:
(a) Mr Ryan submitted that Messrs Clarke and Schofield were persons with very forthright views who did not “mince their words” and who called “a spade a spade”.
(b) It was obvious from the evidence that Mr Schofield was upset and distressed to a significant degree by the actions of New Zealand Greyhound Racing in altering the field to what he perceived his disadvantage and that in his mind it was clear that that alteration was a result of the actions of Mr Clarke who benefited directly by the change.
(c) It seems apparent to Counsel that there is a great deal of “bad blood” as it were between Mr Schofield on the one hand and Mr Clark on the other. Mr Ryan did not intend to go into any detail in respect of same other than to say that the background material in relation to previous events clearly impacted on Mr Schofield when he made the telephone call.
(d) Mr Ryan submitted that the penalties sought by Mr George were excessive. He pointed to the impact that a financial penalty or a penalty of disqualification would have on Mr Schofield and pointed to his success as a Trainer, his family situation, the fact that he concentrates solely on training his greyhounds and does not go to race meetings to avoid difficulties, the loss suffered by Mr Schofield and his partner in July 2010 when their home and contents were completely burnt to the ground.
(e) Mr Ryan further submitted that as to appropriate penalty, the use of the words complained of could not attract other than a minimal penalty were they the subject of the proceedings in the Criminal Courts, on the supposition that the Police even decided that it was worth prosecuting. In Mr Ryan’s submission he says the parallel form of justice such as that set out in the Racing Act for the Racing Control Authority should not go beyond what is considered to be appropriate in the community at large. In other words, no special or draconian penalty should be imposed other than those which might be imposed in a Court of Law.
(f) Mr Ryan also submitted that in addition to the foregoing he would submit that the principles set out in the Criminal Legislation and contained particularly in the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Amending Act 2007 must be considered by the Tribunal here in imposing any penalty and he particularly draws the attention of the Tribunal to the following factors which are set out in Sections 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002 namely:
(i) Holding the offender accountable for any harm done to the victim and promoting a sensible responsibility; denouncing the conduct and deterring the offender and in addition assisting in the offender’s rehabilitation.
(g) Mr Ryan also drew this Committee’s attention to the appeal case of E v NZGRA such decision being given on the 14th of April 2010.
1.8 In arriving at an appropriate penalty this Committee is conscious of the need to preserve the Integrity of Racing. Misconduct by participants in the Industry does affect that Integrity because of the resultant publication of any act of misconduct. Judicial Committees need to be mindful of the impact that charges of misconduct have on the Racing Industry.
1.9 It is necessary for any penalty to not only be appropriate to the charge but also to act as a deterrent for all in the Racing Industry. The Committee is well aware of the sentencing principles in previous cases in NZTR v P and NZTR v C.
1.10 The aggravating features in this case are that firstly Mr Schofield does not have a good record, secondly that it was a serious abuse and threats to a fellow Trainer and thirdly that even at the Hearing of the charge Mr Schofield still felt justified in his comments. Although Mr Clarke said he felt threatened by Mr Schofield’s comments he did not necessarily feel physically threatened but rather the threat of incidents in front of his family.
1.11 The threats complained of could well have lead Mr Clarke to have these dealt with in another forum and perhaps Mr Schofield is fortunate that it is being dealt with within the Racing Industry. We are conscious of Mr Ryan’s submission that the Police may well not have dealt with it but there is always the possibility that it might have been dealt with by the Police. In our view this is a significant charge of misconduct which does warrant a penalty of disqualification although not necessarily the period submitted by Mr George. We note that in the case of NZGRA v M there was a period of 3 months disqualification imposed and we understand the facts of that case to be different to the within case and that it was Mr M’s second such charge.
1.12 Mr Schofield has had fines imposed on him previously and has not learned from that and we believe that a period of disqualification is appropriate.
1.13 Mr Schofield expressed his frustration at the circumstances that led him to telephone Mr Clarke but at the end of the day as a professional Trainer Mr Schofield must keep his frustrations in check and simply cannot treat Officials in the manner that he does.
Penalty:
1.14 The Committee makes the following orders:
(a) Mr Schofield is disqualified under the Rules of NZGRA for a period of three months. The period of disqualification to commence from the 16th of June 2011 to allow Mr Schofield to make arrangements for any greyhounds he has in training.
(b) The RIU did not seek and Order for Costs.
(c) Mr Schofield is ordered to pay costs to the JCA of $550.00.
Dated this 2nd day of June 2011
________________________________
BJ Scott (Chairman)
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 25/05/2011
Publish Date: 25/05/2011
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: c6010d7d9ac4e8162942d50c5cc2d164
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/05/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZGRA v D D Schofield - Decision relating to penalty - Decision dated 2 June 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Judicial Committee:
Mr BJ Scott (Chairman)
Mr BJ Rowe (Committee)
Mr BJ Scott (Chairman)
Mr BJ Rowe (Committee)
Present:
Mr C George – by submissions on behalf of GRNZ
Mr AJ Ryan – by submissions on behalf of Mr DD Schofield
Mr C George – by submissions on behalf of GRNZ
Mr AJ Ryan – by submissions on behalf of Mr DD Schofield
Date of Hearing:
29 March 2011
29 March 2011
Venue:
Manukau Greyhound Raceway
Manukau Greyhound Raceway
DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Introduction:
1.1 On the 20th of April 2011 the Committee delivered its decision on the charge brought against Mr Schofield for breach of Rule 88.1 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Rules (the Rules by GRNZ). The breach which the Committee found proved was that on the 11th of January 2011 Mr Schofield misconducted himself by contacting Licensed Trainer S Clarke via telephone and verbally abusing and threatening him. The words used by Mr Schofield were set out in the charge. The circumstances in which the breach of Rule 88.1 occurred and our reason for finding the charge proved are set out in our decision of the 20th of April 2011 and except to the extent necessary for present purposes are not repeated again here.
1.2 There is no need to repeat the evidence in detail other than to say that we found the following facts were accepted:
(a) Mr Schofield did make some effort to check to see if his greyhound VIOLENT THUNDER was eligible for the relevant race at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club Meeting on the 13th of January 2011.
(b) That VIOLENT THUNDER was entered in the field for that race.
(c) VIOLENT THUNDER was not eligible to start in the race.
(d) The eligibility of VIOLENT THUNDER was drawn to the attention of GRNZ by Mr Clark.
(e) The field was redrawn and VIOLENT THUNDER was transferred out of that race and into a different class race.
(f) Mr Schofield telephoned Mr Clark and used the words complained of. There was some dispute by Mr Schofield that he used one of the words complained of but we were satisfied that he used those words.
1.3 At the conclusion of our Decision of 20th of April 2011 we put in place a timetable for submissions on penalty and costs to be made by GRNZ and Mr Schofield. Submissions have now been received from both parties and we are in a position to deliver our decision on those remaining issues.
1.4 On behalf of GRNZ Mr George submitted as follows:
The nature of the charges entitles the Committee to view them in a serious manner.
It’s paramount that the Committee considers a significant penalty to deter other participants from acting in the same way against the officials and other participants.
Mr Schofield displayed threatening and inappropriate behaviour against two people participating in greyhound racing. The RIU submits that in parts of Mr Schofield’s communication Mr Clarke felt offended and threatened.
Participants irrespective of their concerns cannot “take matters into their own hands” and threaten and offend other participants. There is a proper way of handling matters of concern.
Mr Schofield intended to handle it his way by acting aggressively. He went out of his way to contact Mr Clarke. There is clear intent.
Mr Clark who only made enquiries about matters within the Rules of Racing as he is entitled to was subject to an aggressive and threatening approach from Mr Schofield. A participant should be allowed to make inquiries without the fear of inappropriate behaviour by other members of the industry.
Mr Schofield fell well below the level of expectation for conduct placed on licensed people in the industry.
Mr Schofield had breached this rule previously and Mr George attached copies of the previous decisions involving Mr Schofield. He further submitted that Mr Schofield had to accept that his conduct is required to be professional and appropriate. Previous warnings and penalties had not worked to deter Mr Schofield from breaching the rules once again.
GRNZ via their magazine to the Industry warned all participants that any improper conduct or unprofessional conduct mounting to a breach of the misconduct rules will not be tolerated. This was in the January 2009 edition.
Mr Schofield provided to this Committee a copy of a decision dated 14 January 2009 in respect to a charge of Misconduct by Mr M.
Mr M admitted a breach of the Misconduct rules for abuse directed at other persons and was disqualified for a period of 3 months.
The Chairman (Mr EF Doherty) of that Committee stated in his decision the following:
“Any behaviour involving threats of violence is a serious matter and clearly warrants a heavy penalty which might well include disqualification in appropriate cases. The message is obviously necessary”.
Mr Schofield was reminded and warned along with all participants that conduct of this nature would possibly carry serious consequences.
It’s imperative that people in the Industry can carry out their functions without fear and Racing needs to know that behaviour like that displayed by Mr Schofield will not and cannot be tolerated for the betterment of Racing.
Mr George submitted that a deterrent sentence is required for the Integrity of Racing. He said that it was important that the Committee imposes a penalty that will enhance the image and conduct of Greyhound Racing in New Zealand.
Mr George than asked the Committee to consider the following aspects which in his view were paramount for imposing the appropriate penalty,
(i) A very serious breach of the Rules of Racing.
(ii) The intent of Mr Schofield’s actions.
(iii) Threatening nature.
(iv) Misconduct towards a fellow Licensed Trainer.
(v) Conduct record.
(vi) Warnings by GRNZ.
(vii) To deter others in the racing for similar conduct.
(ii) The intent of Mr Schofield’s actions.
(iii) Threatening nature.
(iv) Misconduct towards a fellow Licensed Trainer.
(v) Conduct record.
(vi) Warnings by GRNZ.
(vii) To deter others in the racing for similar conduct.
Mr George submitted that a disqualification of Mr Schofield for a period of no less than 6 months for the charge should be imposed.
1.5 Mr Ryan presented submissions on behalf of Mr Schofield and his submissions can be summarized as follows:
(a) Mr Ryan submitted that Messrs Clarke and Schofield were persons with very forthright views who did not “mince their words” and who called “a spade a spade”.
(b) It was obvious from the evidence that Mr Schofield was upset and distressed to a significant degree by the actions of New Zealand Greyhound Racing in altering the field to what he perceived his disadvantage and that in his mind it was clear that that alteration was a result of the actions of Mr Clarke who benefited directly by the change.
(c) It seems apparent to Counsel that there is a great deal of “bad blood” as it were between Mr Schofield on the one hand and Mr Clark on the other. Mr Ryan did not intend to go into any detail in respect of same other than to say that the background material in relation to previous events clearly impacted on Mr Schofield when he made the telephone call.
(d) Mr Ryan submitted that the penalties sought by Mr George were excessive. He pointed to the impact that a financial penalty or a penalty of disqualification would have on Mr Schofield and pointed to his success as a Trainer, his family situation, the fact that he concentrates solely on training his greyhounds and does not go to race meetings to avoid difficulties, the loss suffered by Mr Schofield and his partner in July 2010 when their home and contents were completely burnt to the ground.
(e) Mr Ryan further submitted that as to appropriate penalty, the use of the words complained of could not attract other than a minimal penalty were they the subject of the proceedings in the Criminal Courts, on the supposition that the Police even decided that it was worth prosecuting. In Mr Ryan’s submission he says the parallel form of justice such as that set out in the Racing Act for the Racing Control Authority should not go beyond what is considered to be appropriate in the community at large. In other words, no special or draconian penalty should be imposed other than those which might be imposed in a Court of Law.
(f) Mr Ryan also submitted that in addition to the foregoing he would submit that the principles set out in the Criminal Legislation and contained particularly in the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Amending Act 2007 must be considered by the Tribunal here in imposing any penalty and he particularly draws the attention of the Tribunal to the following factors which are set out in Sections 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002 namely:
(i) Holding the offender accountable for any harm done to the victim and promoting a sensible responsibility; denouncing the conduct and deterring the offender and in addition assisting in the offender’s rehabilitation.
(g) Mr Ryan also drew this Committee’s attention to the appeal case of E v NZGRA such decision being given on the 14th of April 2010.
1.8 In arriving at an appropriate penalty this Committee is conscious of the need to preserve the Integrity of Racing. Misconduct by participants in the Industry does affect that Integrity because of the resultant publication of any act of misconduct. Judicial Committees need to be mindful of the impact that charges of misconduct have on the Racing Industry.
1.9 It is necessary for any penalty to not only be appropriate to the charge but also to act as a deterrent for all in the Racing Industry. The Committee is well aware of the sentencing principles in previous cases in NZTR v P and NZTR v C.
1.10 The aggravating features in this case are that firstly Mr Schofield does not have a good record, secondly that it was a serious abuse and threats to a fellow Trainer and thirdly that even at the Hearing of the charge Mr Schofield still felt justified in his comments. Although Mr Clarke said he felt threatened by Mr Schofield’s comments he did not necessarily feel physically threatened but rather the threat of incidents in front of his family.
1.11 The threats complained of could well have lead Mr Clarke to have these dealt with in another forum and perhaps Mr Schofield is fortunate that it is being dealt with within the Racing Industry. We are conscious of Mr Ryan’s submission that the Police may well not have dealt with it but there is always the possibility that it might have been dealt with by the Police. In our view this is a significant charge of misconduct which does warrant a penalty of disqualification although not necessarily the period submitted by Mr George. We note that in the case of NZGRA v M there was a period of 3 months disqualification imposed and we understand the facts of that case to be different to the within case and that it was Mr M’s second such charge.
1.12 Mr Schofield has had fines imposed on him previously and has not learned from that and we believe that a period of disqualification is appropriate.
1.13 Mr Schofield expressed his frustration at the circumstances that led him to telephone Mr Clarke but at the end of the day as a professional Trainer Mr Schofield must keep his frustrations in check and simply cannot treat Officials in the manner that he does.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
1.14 The Committee makes the following orders:
(a) Mr Schofield is disqualified under the Rules of NZGRA for a period of three months. The period of disqualification to commence from the 16th of June 2011 to allow Mr Schofield to make arrangements for any greyhounds he has in training.
(b) The RIU did not seek and Order for Costs.
(c) Mr Schofield is ordered to pay costs to the JCA of $550.00.
Dated this 2nd day of June 2011
________________________________
BJ Scott (Chairman)
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: