Non Raceday Inquiry NZGRA v M P Mann – Decision on Penalty dated 29 November 2012

hearingid: 5189e9cf67aa2ceafb8eddf65408cff8

informantnumber: 69184

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 24/11/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry NZGRA v M P Mann - Decision on Penalty dated 29 November 2012

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY

NZGRA v Mrs M P Mann

Rule:  88.1(w)

Held:  Thursday, 29 November 2012 at Cambridge Raceway, Cambridge

Judicial Committee:  R Seabrook, Chairman - A Dooley, Committee Member

Registrar:  Mr B Jones

Present:  Mr M J Hodge - Counsel for the Informant, Mr S Mann - Assisting Mrs Mann 

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 

HEARING FACTS:  

A rehearing of the penalty decision given at the non race day enquiry of 11 September 2012 following the decision of the Appeals Tribunal of 5 November 2012 – 3 months disqualification suspended for 12 months.

At the commencement of the hearing the Chairman explained to those present that this Hearing was convened to readdress the penalty handed down on 5 November. The facts surrounding the charge were considered on that date and therefore do not need any further discussion today. Both parties accepted this submission. 

SUBMISSIONS FOR INFORMANT ON PENALTY 

Introduction

The defendant has admitted a charge of making a false/misleading statement as follows:

(a)

That on 31 May 2012 and on 14 June 2012, at Cambridge Raceway, Michelle Patricia Mann committed a breach of rule 88.1(w) of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association, in that she made oral statements to Thomas Rodney Carmichael, a duly appointed racecourse inspector, denying being present at Cambridge Raceway at 12.30am on 24 May 2012, knowing the statements to be false and intended to mislead.

1.2

The defendant is therefore liable to the penalties that may be imposed under rule 89.1 of the Rules.

1.3

Following a hearing on 11 September 2012 the Committee issued a decision dated 12 September 2012 in which it imposed a penalty of a three-month disqualification, suspended for twelve months (Tab 1).

1.4

The informant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal ruled that there was no jurisdiction to suspend a disqualification, and overturned the Committee’s decision on penalty and remitted that decision back to the Committee (Tab 2).

1.5

The hearing before the Committee on 29 November 2012 is for the purpose of addressing the issue of penalty in accordance with the Appeal’s Tribunal’s decision.  

2.1

The factual background was set out in the Committee’s decision of 12　September 2012 and is repeated here for ease of reference.

2.2

The Defendant in these proceedings is Michelle Patricia Mann. She is licensed with New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association as a Public Trainer. She has been involved in greyhound racing for a number of years, including the last 10 years as an Owner/Trainer and more recently as a Public Trainer.

2.3

On 21 May 2012 the Defendant nominated two greyhounds for a race meeting to be conducted by the Waikato & Districts Greyhound Racing Club. Neither greyhound was selected in the final fields. As a consequence officials of the Club, and others, received a number of calls and text messages from Stephen Mann to either complain about the non-selection or to seek an explanation as to why neither greyhound was selected.

2.4

The President of the Club received one call which he was concerned about, indicated that Mr Mann had made a reference to the Club not racing on 24 May 2012.

2.5

At about 12.26am on 24 May 2012 a Security Guard carrying out a routine check at Cambridge Raceway observed a car parked near a temporary marquee and adjacent to the entrance to the harness track.

2.6

As the Security Guard approached, the lights on the car were turned off and the car reversed onto the harness track and parked. A supervisor and the Police were then called by the Security Guard. A statement from the Security Guard was produced.

2.7

Mr Mann and a woman who gave her name as Michelle Mann were then spoken to by the Police. Mr Mann said that he had been given permission by the Club President to be at the track to catch rabbits. Subsequent enquiries confirm that no such permission was given by the President. Further, Mr Mann at the time of this incident was a Disqualified Person. It therefore follows that neither Mr Mann nor the Defendant had any lawful reason to be within the confines of the Cambridge Raceway complex at 12.26am on the 24 May 2012. A statement from Constable Hewald was produced.

2.8

On 31 May 2012 the Defendant was interviewed at Cambridge Raceway. She denied that she was the person in the car at the raceway on 24 May 2012, saying that the person with Mr Mann was a female boarder.

2.9

That person was interviewed the same day, denying that she was the person concerned. However, as a result of what she said it became necessary to interview the Defendant again.

2.10

On 14 June 2012 I attended Cambridge Raceway with Constable Hewald of the Cambridge Police. A greyhound race meeting was being held at that time. Constable Hewald identified the Defendant amongst a number of trainers and spectators as one of the persons located at the raceway on 24 May 2012.

2.11

As a result, at 12.20pm on 14 June 2012, I spoke to the Defendant at her van following the running of a race when she was putting a greyhound in the van. She again denied that she was the person with Mr Mann at the raceway on 24 May 2012.

2.12

The matter was reported to the Operations Manager of the RIU in accordance with the Rules. Subsequently the Defendant was charged with a breach of Rule 88.1(w). The Information was served personally upon her at Cambridge on 28 June 2012. At that time the Defendant indicated that she would defend the charge.

2.13

A week prior to this hearing, the Defendant contacted the Informant indicating that she would admit the charge and that she would give her reasons for denying that she had made a false statement when she addresses the Judicial Committee. 

3.1

Numerous decisions of Judicial Committees and the Appeals Tribunal have confirmed that penalties imposed for breaches of rules of racing must give proper emphasis to accountability and denunciation which in turn operates as a deterrent to others from breaching rules in a similar way. See, for example, NZTR v M (29/4/11) at paragraph 4.5 (Tab 3).

3.2

It is submitted that these principles apply to offending of the kind that the defendant engaged in of intentionally misleading a racecourse inspector.

3.3

Misleading a racecourse inspector is conduct which goes to the heart of the regulatory regime. For the public to have confidence in the integrity of greyhound racing it is essential that those involved in the industry are forthright and honest with racing officials. The defendant acted dishonestly in this case.

3.4

Based on submissions Mr Mann made at the hearing on 11 September 2012, the defendant has misled the inspector at the behest of Mr Mann. This indicates a concerning lack of understanding by the defendant of her obligations. The defendant is obliged to conduct herself honestly and diligently as a trainer in her own right, not at the direction of her husband who is disqualified.

3.5

Finally, the defendant was dishonest on two separate occasions, 31 May 2012 and 14　June 2012. This aggravates her behaviour.

3.6

It is therefore submitted that a period of suspension is justified in this case.

3.7

In the case of L (9/10/08) (Tab 4) the Judicial Committee imposed a penalty of suspension of almost five weeks for giving false evidence to a Steward about having worn a false vest. The Committee described this as a lenient penalty, which took into account the fact that L had been separately punished for a related offence, had admitted what he had done immediately his deception was discovered and had pleaded guilty to the charge.

3.8

There is reference in L to two other cases – Cn and Cy. The defendant in Cn was suspended for two months for supplying false information to Stewards and the defendant in Cy was suspended for four weeks and received a fine of $700 for a similar offence.

3.9

In the present case the defendant admitted the charge a week before the hearing. This is a mitigating factor in her favour. However, consistently with L (where the defendant admitted his behaviour straight away) it is submitted that a period of suspension no less than two months is justified in this case.

3.10

It is acknowledged that the Committee’s previous decision was to suspend the penalty imposed and that this following a submission for the informant. If in all the circumstances of this case the Committee chooses to take a more lenient approach that submitted above, a fine may be imposed. It is submitted that the fine would need to be in the range of $1,500-2,000 in order to be an appropriate deterrent given the offending in this case.

3.11

In the event the Committee does impose a fine in this range, it is submitted that it should be expressly on the basis that it reflects a lenient approach in the unusual circumstances of this case and that in the ordinary course misleading a Steward or inspector would result in suspension. 

4.1

Ordinarily the Committee would seek its costs but does not do so in the unusual circumstances of this case.

4.2

In its previous decision the Committee ordered the defendant to pay $350 by way of costs to the JCA and it is submitted that this order was appropriate. 

Mr Mann referred to the submission by Mr Hodge regarding Thoroughbred riders and Greyhound trainers. He submitted there was a vast difference between the two. He then stated Mrs Mann had never been in trouble prior to this charge and had a clear record for the past ten years. He also said this charge had been tough on Mrs Mann due to the unusual circumstances and she had already served 7 weeks of the original penalty up until the appeal date of 5 November. He added they had 9 greyhounds in work of which they own 7 and 2 were trained for outside owners. Mr Mann said he was disappointed the charge was served by NZGRA because the police had already carried out an investigation. He concluded by saying Mrs Mann was very apologetic but in fact it was his fault and it will never happen again. 

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The committee has carefully considered all submissions as presented. It accepts that Mrs Mann’s action of intentionally misleading a Racecourse Inspector is a serious offence. It is vital the public has confidence in the integrity of Greyhound racing and licensed holders are forthright and honest with officials. Although Mrs Mann has been directed by Mr Mann in misleading the Racecourse Inspector she is obliged to conduct herself honestly and diligently in her own right.

With regard to the past cases submitted by Mr Hodge the Committee is aware there are significant differences between penalties imposed in the 3 codes. The Committee presented Mr Hodge a copy of past Greyhound penalties sourced from the JCA website. In particular the case NZGRA v L on 15 July 2011 which also involved false statements to the RIU Investigator and Stipendiary Steward. Mr Hodge was not aware of the case but accepted the finding of the fine imposed. 

Mitigating factors in this case today are Mrs Mann’s admission of the breach and her clear record.

The significant aggravating factor is that Mrs Mann gave misleading evidence on two separate occasions.

The Committee gave due consideration to Mr Hodge’s submission that a period of suspension was the correct penalty. However because of the unusual circumstances of this case and the fact that Mrs Mann has already served 7 weeks of the original penalty up until 5 November 2012 the Committee determines a fine is an appropriate penalty.

The committee referred to the listing of penalties sourced from the JCA website for all 3 codes to establish a relevant and consistent penalty. We stress that it is important for the penalty in this case to contain a deterrent element demonstrating to all in the industry this type of behaviour will not be accepted.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

PENALTY

Accordingly after taking all the above factors into account we impose a fine of $1000. 

COSTS

In addition we order costs of $350 to be paid to the JCA. 

R Seabrook                           A Dooley

Chairman                             Committee Member

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 88.1(w)

Informant: Mr T R Carmichael - Chief Racing Investigator

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr M J Hodge - Counsel for the Informant, Mr B Jones - Registrar, Mr S Mann - assisting Mrs M Mann

Respondent: Mrs M P Mann - Public Trainer

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: