Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C J Weir – Reserved Decision dated 5 March 2014

hearingid: 02323046fd6cb2948fd9acc7bf52cdec

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 10/03/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C J Weir - Reserved Decision dated 5 March 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A1070

BETWEEN RICHARD A QUIRK, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND CALUM J WEIR of Christchurch, Licensed Public Greyhound Trainer

Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27 February 2014

Venue: Addington Racecourse, Christchurch

Judicial Committee: S C Ching, Chair - R G McKenzie, Committee Member

Present: Mr R A Quirk, the Informant

Miss S M Nissen, representing the Respondent

Mr J McLaughlin, Registrar

Date of Decision: 5 March 2014

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] Information No. A1070 alleges that:

Mr Weir misconducted himself by sending an email containing obscene language to Mr Greg Kerr of GRNZ on 29 January 2014

The Rules

[2] Rule 88.1.o of the Rules of Greyhound Racing provides as follows:

88.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:

o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct;

The Plea

[3] Mr Weir had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. Miss Stacey Nissen, Mr Weir’s partner, representing him, confirmed this at the hearing.

Summary of Facts

[4] On 17 December 2013, Mr Greg Kerr, as animal welfare officer for GRNZ, had sent Mr Weir an email requesting the status on 6 Australian bred pups as they were as yet to be named.

[5] On 29 January 2014, Miss Nissen attended a GRNZ meeting with others at Addington where Mr Greg Kerr outlined a proposal to set a levy of $500 for every greyhound imported in the future. Mr Weir did not attend the meeting.

[6] Following the meeting Miss Nissen reported back to Mr Weir at home with Mr Weir becoming upset with Mr Kerr’s proposal. Following this, and that same evening, Mr Weir wrote a reply to Mr Kerr’s email of 17 December which contained one line, “There not ready to race yet f.....”.

[7] Mr Quirk made application pursuant to Rule 92.2 (a) from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, to lodge an information against Mr Weir for a breach of Rule 88.1.o. This application was granted on 31 January 2014 and a letter was produced for the Judicial Committee.

[8] Mr Weir was subsequently charged on 3 February 2014 with a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that he misconducted himself by sending an email with obscene language within to Mr Greg Kerr. Mr Weir admitted the breach.

Informant’s Submissions

[9] Mr Quirk informed the Committee that Mr Greg Kerr had sent the same email out to 30 different trainers at the same time requesting information on unnamed greyhounds.

[10] Mr Quirk stated that when Mr Weir was questioned he had stated that the reason he sent the offending email was because he was frustrated with the role of Mr Kerr as Animal Welfare Manager who was responsible for the introduction of the $500 fee for importing dogs. Mr Weir told Mr Quirk that most of his dogs were from Australia and that this $500 fee for every dog would have an adverse effect on his ability to continue with the number of dogs he usually had in training.

[11] Mr Quirk stated that one of the reasons GRNZ was proposing the $500 fee was to restrict the number of dog imports coming into the country and therefore the number of dogs that had to be cared for after retiring from racing.

Submissions of Respondent

[12] Miss Nissen submitted that she had, without Mr Weir, attended the meeting on 29 January with Mr Kerr and this meeting had been incredibly frustrating. Mr Kerr, she said, was not exceptionally personable. She had gone home and reported to Mr Weir what had happened at the meeting and he had become “worked up”. Mr Weir had then sent the offending email to Mr Kerr.

[13] Miss Nissen also stated that Mr Weir was annoyed with Mr Kerr’s email asking for information on the unnamed dogs. She said that greyhounds cannot race until they are 15 months old. These pups she said were only 14 months old. Mr Weir did not like the blatant tone of the email and felt it was impersonal.

Submissions of Informant on Penalty

[14] Mr Quirk for the RIU stated that the breach was at the lower end of the scale. He stated that Mr Weir had admitted the breach at the first opportunity and that his record was clear in regard to this rule. He also stated that Mr Weir had always been professional in any dealings with the Stewards in the past. Mr Weir he said, in the current season, was in a new training partnership with Miss Nissen. The partnership was enjoying a successful first season and had started 267 runners with 59 winners so far.

[15] He said the only similar case in Greyhound racing was RIU v Mr P where the charge was not admitted and the abuse was verbal and more prolonged. Mr Quirk said that the penalty on that occasion was $350. Mr Quirk submitted that the Committee should consider a starting point of penalty of $300 in this case.

Respondent’s Submissions

[16] Miss Nissen stated that this outburst from Mr Weir was totally out of character and normally he is a very quiet person. She stated that Mr Weir had had a tough previous few months as he had donated a kidney to his son in August and this had taken a toll on him.

[17] Miss Nissen said Mr Weir is a bricklayer by trade and the use of the offending word is used daily by him and other tradespeople. She said she did not believe that Mr Weir meant it in the way it has been portrayed.

[18] Miss Nissen stated that Mr Weir admitted he was in the wrong and had admitted the breach at the first opportunity.

[19] Miss Nissen offered no submissions in regard to the level of penalty.

Reasons for Penalty

[20] In determining penalty we have given credit to Mr Weir for his frank admission of the breach and his good record. We have also taken into consideration the level of offending which we believe is at the lower level. We also determine that the contents of the email were ill considered, sent in the heat of the moment and would seem totally out of character.

[21] We have adopted the starting point of $300 as recommended by Mr Quirk and been able to give Mr Weir a discount of $100 for his frank admission of the breach and his good penalty record.

[22] Taking all factors into consideration we therefore determined that an appropriate penalty in this case is a fine of $200.

Penalty

[23] Mr Weir is fined the sum of $200.

S C Ching                R G McKenzie

Chair                       Committee Member

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: