Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v CW White – 11 October 2011 – Decision 14 October 2011

hearingid: 9cb096327cb27376ff1928f090e3f3f1

informantnumber: 66756 and 66754

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/10/2011

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v CW White - 11 October 2011 - Decision 14 October 2011

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand
Rules of Harness Racing

BETWEEN Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND Craig William WHITE
Defendant

DATE OF HEARING: 11 October 2011

VENUE: Addington Raceway, Christchurch.

PRESENT: Mr N. M. Ydgren (Stipendiary Steward) representing the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr A. L. Ray (Stipendiary Steward), Mr S. P. Renault (Stipendiary Steward) – Registrar

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: J. M. Phelan (Chairman), S. C. Ching (Committe Member)

DATE OF DECISION: 14 October 2011

DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren had filed two Informations against Mr Craig William White, holder of a Licence to Train, charging him with two breaches of the Rules of Harness Racing. It was alleged that Mr White wilfully supplied false information to the Stipendiary Stewards, being Serious Racing Offences under Rule 1001(1)(k) of the Rules of Harness Racing.

[2] The first charge (information 66756) reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 1001(1)(k) In that you did commit a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of Rule 1001(1)(k) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing in that you did wilfully supply false information to Stipendiary Stewards in a matter connected with harness racing AND THAT accordingly you are liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed upon you pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1001(2) of the said Rules.
THE PARTICULARS being that when questioned by the Stipendiary Stewards at NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club on 13 September 2011 regarding the horse NOVEMBER RAIN you did give evidence knowing it to be false and misleading.”

[3] The second charge (information 66754) reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 1001(1)(k) In that you did commit a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of Rule 1001(1)(k) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing in that you did wilfully supply false information to Stipendiary Stewards in a matter connected with harness racing AND THAT accordingly you are liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1001(2) of the said Rules.
THE PARTICULARS being that when questioned by the Stipendiary Stewards on Wednesday 14 September 2011 regarding the horse NOVEMBER RAIN you did give evidence knowing it to be false and misleading.”

[4] Rule 1001(1)(k) is a Serious Racing Offence, and reads as follows.

“(1) Every person commits a serious racing offence within the meaning of these Rules, who, in New Zealand or in any other country:-
(k) wilfully supplies any false or misleading information, or makes any false or misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise under these Rules to a Judicial Committee, an Appeals Tribunal, the Chairman, the Board the Stewards or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, a Racecourse Inspector or any other body, tribunal or person; or wilfully makes a false or misleading statement in support of an application for any payment out of any trust fund; or in, or in connection with, any application for registration of a horse wilfully gives or causes to be given, or is knowingly a party to the giving of, any false or misleading information or particulars;”

[5] Mr Ydgren produced written permission from the Operations Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit to file these informations.

[6] Mr White agreed that he understood the charges and the Rule they were brought under, and he also said that he admitted these breaches of the Rules.

[7] In relation to the first charge Mr Ydgren gave evidence that on 13 September 2011, after “November Rain” won Race 3, the Tintin In America At Nevele R Stud Mobile Pace, the Stipendiary Stewards questioned Mr White about the horse’s apparent form reversal. During that inquiry Mr White said that he had picked the horse up earlier in the week and improved its performance by “jogging her down the road”. A full transcript of the interview with Mr White was produced in evidence.

[8] In relation to the second charge Mr Ydgren gave evidence that Mr White was again interviewed on the following day, the 14 September 2011, by himself and Stipendiary Steward Mr A. L. Ray. This interview took place at the property of Mr John Mooney.

[9] During this interview Mr White further misled the Stipendiary Stewards, firstly by stating that he had been working the horse “November Rain” on the roads, secondly and thirdly by misleading them as to the horse’s whereabouts, fourthly misleading them about his role in working the horse at the training facility of Mr Keast, and finally, again, about the horse being worked on the side of the road. A full transcript of this interview was also produced in evidence.

[10] Mr White did not dispute any of the evidence given by the Stipendiary Stewards.

[11] Mr Ydgren produced written submissions on penalty. He submitted that Mr White had failed to tell the truth on five separate occasions regarding the horse “November Rain” and also as to his role in a training capacity. Mr Ydgren made submissions that it is a fundamental requirement of people in the racing industry to answer questions honestly, and on this occasion he had misled the Stipendiary Stewards and the public. It was also established at the hearing that the Stipendiary Stewards’ report on this race was inaccurate because Mr White had not told the truth.

[12] It was also submitted that it was of significant concern that Mr White had misled the Stipendiary Stewards over a prolonged period.

[13] Mr Ydgren advised that Mr White had a clear record. These offences are Serious Racing Offences and carry heavy penalties. These penalties include disqualification, a suspension or a fine. In this case Mr Ydgren submitted that a suspension between 4 and 6 months should be imposed. A disqualification was not considered to be appropriate, as Mr White has an income from working at Addington raceway, and this work is not related to harness racing.

[14] Mr Ydgren also referred us to penalties imposed in two similar prosecutions in thoroughbred racing. In NZTR v. C (2007), C produced a falsified receipt to the Stipendiary Stewards knowing it to be false. C was disqualified for a period of 6 months on this charge. In NZTR v. S (2005), S was charged with two offences relating to a false document (a letter) which was made in an attempt to avoid a penalty being imposed by a Judicial Committee. S was disqualified for a period of over 5 months (22 February 2005 to 31 July 2005).

[15] Mr Ydgren also produced two Australian cases, but it is difficult to compare these decisions with the two referred to above, and we found they were of little assistance.

[16] During the hearing there was also reference to the prosecution in RIU v. B (2011). In that case a Junior Horseman had been untruthful in relation to when he had received a punctured tyre. When he was questioned about the matter he admitted that he had misled the Stipendiary Stewards. B was prosecuted under the same Rule we are dealing with here, and he had his Horseman’s Licence suspended for two weeks (3 race meetings) and was fined the sum of $400-00.

[17] We are satisfied that the circumstances of the two thoroughbred cases of C and S were much more serious than the present case. We are also satisfied that the circumstances of the B case was less serious, as the breach was admitted at the first opportunity.

[18] When asked for submissions on penalty Mr White advised that he has nine horses in work at the moment, but had nothing relevant to say about the submissions of the Stipendiary Stewards as to the period of suspension.

Decision on Penalty:

[19] We are satisfied that this breach of Rule 1001(1)(k) is moderately serious, but much less serious than the cases of C and S referred to above. It is more serious than the case of B referred to above, and the wilful supply of false information went on for much longer.

[20] We also took into account that Mr White has no previous breaches of the Rules which are relevant, that he admitted the breach, and that he has shown remorse for his actions.

[21] Taking all the above matters into account we have decided that Mr Whites Licence to Train will be suspended for a period of 4 months.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

[22] Mr White’s Licence to Train is suspended from after the completion of racing on Friday 21 October 2011, until after the completion of racing on Tuesday 21 February 2012, which is a period of four calendar months.

Costs:

[23] Mr Ydgren advised that no costs were being sought by the RIU. There will however be an order that Mr White pay costs of $350-00 to the Judicial Control Authority.

__________________        _________________
J. M. Phelan                     S.C. Ching
Chairman                        Committee Member

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 1001(1)(k)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr AL Ray - Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: Mr CW White - Holder of License to Train

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: