Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v DP Quirke – 5 February 2016 Decision – Chair, Mr M McKechnie

hearingid: d55b2e5c1bab8f2267014403b683a145

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 09/02/2016

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v DP Quirke - 5 February 2016 Decision - Chair, Mr M McKechnie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
INFORMANT

DENNIS PHILIP QUIRKE, Handicapper
DEFENDANT

Judicial Committee: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Mrs Nicki Moffatt, Committee Member
Present: Mr Brian Dickey, Counsel for the Racing Integrity Unit - Mr Neil Grimstone, Manager Racing Integrity Unit -Mr John Tannahill, Counsel for Mr Quirke - Mr Dennis Philip Quirke

DECISION OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

1. INTRODUCTION AND PLEA
1.1 This is a hearing before a Non-Raceday Judicial Committee. The Racing Integrity Unit has prosecuted Mr Dennis Quirke the Chief Handicapper for Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand.

1.2 The Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) in the first instance laid fourteen (14) separate charges alleging breaches of Rule 706(1)(h) of the Rules of Racing.

1.3 Mr Brian Dickey a counsel knowledgeable in racing represents the RIU. Mr Quirke is represented by Mr John Tannahill a counsel vastly experienced in racing matters. Mr Dickey has been on leave and while on leave his colleague Mr Steve Symon had the conduct of the file. Following discussions between Messrs Tannahill and Symon it was agreed that Mr Quirke would be charged with a representative charge in respect of the fourteen (14) instances where it is alleged that there was a breach of Rule 706(1)(h) and a breach of Rule 801(1)(s)(i). The former rule for bids betting by a handicapper who has set the weights for the race upon the bet is placed. Rule 801(1)(s)(i) defines serious racing offences.

1.4 At the commencement of today’s hearing Mr Quirke through his counsel entered a guilty plea to the representative charge and the charge laid under Rule 801(1)(s)(i) and in consequence the fourteen (14) earlier charges that had been laid were dismissed.

2. THE FACTS AND THE PENALTY PROVISIONS
2.1 A summary of facts has been put forward on behalf of the RIU. There were some differences between counsel as to whether certain of the material in the summary were of sufficient relevance to be included. After hearing counsel the Committee has ruled that the summary of facts as presented is acceptable and should not be amended. That summary will be attached to this penalty decision along with a schedule of the fourteen (14) individual breaches which give rise to the representative charge.
2.2 The charge to which Mr Quirke has pleaded guilty is a serious racing offence. The penalties for serious racing offences are set out in Rule 801(2):
801(2)

A person commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:
a. Be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or
b. Be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
c. A fine not exceeding $50,000.

2.3 Both counsel have filed helpful written submissions which we have considered. We have heard detailed oral submissions from both counsel today and both Mr Dickey and Mr Tannahill have answered a number of questions directed to them by the Committee. In brief the position is that Mr Quirke over a period between August and October last on three (3) different days placed fourteen (14) modest bets with the TAB in New Zealand on races being conducted in New Zealand. As the summary of facts makes clear Mr Quirke had, at earlier times, bet very significant sums of money on the TAB in New Zealand with reference to races conducted in Australia and Hong Kong. The relevant rule is framed by reference to races where the handicapper has fixed the weights. Thus it is not an offence for a handicapper to bet on races where he or she has had no involvement in the allocation of the weights the horses are to carry.

2.4 It is accepted by both counsel that Mr Quirke had no inside information in respect of the fourteen (14) bets. To put this in more detailed terms he had no inside information as a result of his position as handicapper which did or might have somehow advantaged him in placing the bets in question. This is a significant consideration. Had there been evidence of such inside information then the offending would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been at a significantly more serious level.

2.5 A copy of the summary of facts and a schedule of the bets placed are attached and form part of this decision.

3. SUBMISSIONS FOR MR QUIRKE
3.1 The Committee was told that Mr Quirke has been suspended from his employment. That is already a matter of public record having been the subject of advice in the media. Mr Tannahill indicated that it was his view that Mr Quirke was almost certain to lose his employment. Given an admitted breach of the rule which has direct reference to the conduct of the handicapper that is unsurprising. The terms upon which Mr Quirke’s employment might be terminated are not a matter of direct relevance for this Committee.

3.2 Mr Tannahill emphasised a number of other matters which he said were of significance. These included but were not necessarily limited to the following:

a. That Mr Quirke acknowledged that he was in breach of the rule. The account of the interview set out in the summary of facts makes clear that this acknowledgement was not immediate but was made after some short time in response to questions directed to him by the investigating officials of the RIU.

b. Mr Tannahill stressed the early guilty plea made by Mr Quirke. The Committee was told that as soon as the discovery and disclosure process had been completed Mr Tannahill made clear to the counsel for the RIU that there would be a plea of guilty. It is a recognised sentencing principle that early pleas of guilty entitle the person who has made such plea to some discount against the penalty that would otherwise be imposed.

c. It is said that Mr Quirke is genuinely remorseful in respect of what has occurred. In that regard it is appropriate to draw attention to the fact that the total sum bet on the fourteen (14) separate occasions was comparatively modest. So too was the net gain made from those bets: something a little over $300.00. Given Mr Quirke’s position of responsibility and his lifetime involvement in racing it is remarkable that he should have chosen to do as he did when it is clear he had frequently bet very significant sums on the New Zealand TAB not on races conducted in New Zealand.

4. SUMISSIONS FOR RIU
4.1 Mr Dickey submitted that Mr Quirke must have been aware of the relevant rule. The rule is in unequivocal terms. The fact that this happened on relatively few occasions would suggest that Mr Quirke did indeed know of the rule and explains, in part at least, why almost all of his betting activity took place outside New Zealand on races where he had not set the handicap.

4.2 Mr Dickey emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of thoroughbred racing and that the perception that might be given from these events would be damaging to the reputation of thoroughbred racing.

4.3 With reference to the question of whether there was any inside knowledge by Mr Quirke we reiterate that the RIU accepts that such was not the case.

5. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS FOR RIU
5.1 The RIU proposes a period of disqualification of twelve (12) months. That to be accompanied by a fine of $5,000. With reference to costs incurred by the RIU Mr Dickey indicated that as a result of Mr Quirke’s co-operation and the co-operation that had occurred between counsel the RIU would not seek a costs award. That is a generous acknowledgement. The RIU went on to say that it was for the Committee to fix some contribution towards the costs incurred by the JCA.

6. SUBMISSIONS FOR MR QUIRKE
6.1 Mr Tannahill proposed a period of disqualification of six (6) months. He further submitted that the fine of $5,000 was more than was appropriate. He acknowledged the position of the RIU in relation to there being no costs sought and further acknowledged that some contribution would be required towards the costs incurred by the JCA. The Committee was told something of Mr Quirke’s financial circumstances. It is not necessary to set those out in detail. It is however clear that Mr Quirke is in a position to meet an appropriate monetary penalty in addition to any period of disqualification which might be imposed. The Committee acknowledge that Mr Quirke will almost certainly lose his employment and that is probably the most significant penalty that will come about as a result of the events outlined here.

7. DECISIONS AND PRECEDENTS
7.1 The submissions for the RIU contained reference to two (2) decisions of Non-Raceday Judicial Committees. Those have been considered. As Mr Dickey realistically acknowledged they bear limited comparison with the present circumstances. Mr Tannahill said that for his part in his long experience in racing he had not come upon a case analogous to the present. In those circumstances just explained the position is very much at large. We are however assisted by the fact that both counsel accepted that a period of disqualification is appropriate together with some monetary penalty. It is therefore a question of fixing the level at which the disqualification and monetary penalties will be set.

8. PENALTIES
8.1 Weighing up all the relevant considerations set out above we have come to the conclusion that a disqualification would be appropriate for a period of ten (10) months. That disqualification is to take effect immediately. In addition Mr Quirke will pay a fine of $4,000. We expressly record that no costs are to be paid to the RIU. Mr Quirke will make a contribution towards the costs of the JCA in the sum of $3,000.
DATED this 5th day of February 2016

______________________________________________
Murray McKechnie
Chairman
Pursuant to Rule 920(4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AT WELLINGTON
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Neil Grimstone
Manger Integrity Assurance

Informant

AND Dennis Phillip QUIRKE
Official Respondent

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent in these proceedings is Dennis Phillip QUIRKE who in May 2015 was employed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing in the official position of Chief Handicapper.
His key areas of responsibility are:

• Analysing form to determine the ratings and consequential weights to enable horses to have the opportunity to race competitively in New Zealand.

• Contributing to the ongoing development of handicapping policy and procedures.
• Analysing and reporting on relevant data to assist with programing functions and optimise the available horse population.
• Accountability for all ratings and weights issued by the New Zealand Thoroughbred Handicapping Team.

Prior to his appointment it was known within the industry that the respondent was a medium to large punter.  Analysing of his betting prior to taking the role, for the period January 2015 until April 2015, revealed an average monthly turnover of $56,500.00 with an average of 873 individual bets per month.

With this knowledge the Racing Integrity Unit Betting Analyst added the respondent to a group of officials across all three codes that are regularly checked upon.

Checks completed over the initial three months revealed compliant betting patterns.

A further check made on December 3rd 2015 revealed betting at New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing meetings in New Zealand as per attached schedule. This betting is in breach of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing and further in breach of the respondents Individual Employment Contract.

The respondent was interviewed by Racing Integrity Unit Investigators on the afternoon of the 17th December 2015.

He admitted to being a 'big punter" and when asked to define that he said "30 to 40 thousand a month". He said that he had only bet in Australia and Hong Kong. When queried about betting in New Zealand he initially stated that he had put some bets on New Zealand Racing for a friend.

When questioned further about this 'friend', the respondent then stated "just scrub that, no, I put the bets on"

He then admitted being responsible for all the bets as per the schedule on his own TAB account of 16592

When questioned about the rules as they relate to officials betting he stated "Oh, I have never read them"

When asked about any wagering policy in his employment contract he stated "There is nothing in there about betting"

QUIRKE did admit that being the Chief Handicapper in New Zealand betting on New Zealand Racing was "not a good look"

Further enquires reveal that it appears the respondent did not have any influence on the handicapping of any of the horses and races in which he bet (as per the attached schedule)

Betting analysis for the 3 months of August, September and October revealed much reduced punting in comparison to prior to QUIRKE taking up the role of Chief Handicapper.

QUIRKE is a 54 year old person who has not previously appeared before the Judicial Control Authority.

N.J. Grimstone
Manager Integrity Assurance.
 

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT v Dennis Phillip QUIRKE

Schedule of Offences

Information  Date             Meeting    Race Bet Type            Bet               Cost   Return

A7501          08.08.2015  Riccarton 1       Final Field Win   #8                $40    Nil

A7502          08.08.2015  Riccarton 1       Boxed Quinella  #1,2,3,8,11  $50    $325.50

A7503          12.09.2015  Awapuni  3       Win                    #1                $50    Nil

A7504          12.09.2015  Awapuni  3       Final Field Win   #5                 $20    Nil

A7505          12.09.2015  Awapuni  3       Final Field Place #5                 $20   $47.00

A7506          12.09.2015  Awapuni  3       Boxed Quinella  #1,2,3,4,5,6  $75    Nil

A7507          12.09.2015  Awapuni  4       Boxed Quinella  #1,2,6,7        $36    Nil

A7508          12.09.2015  Ruakaka  3       Each Way           #1                 $100 $100

A7509          12.09.2015  Ruakaka  3       Final Field Win   #2                 $50    Nil

A7510          12.09.2015  Ruakaka  3       Final Field Place #2                 $50   $105

A7511          12.09.2015  Ruakaka  3       Boxed Quinella  #1,2,9,11      $30   $98

A7512          12.09.2015  Ruakaka  3       Boxed Quinella  #1,2,11         $15   $98

A7513          26.10.2015  Woodville 1      Quinella             #1,3,8,10      $36   Nil

A7514          26.10.2015  Woodville 1      Final Field Win    #1                $55   $176

Total Bet $627.00         Total Won $949.50

Due to late scratching in A7510 actual won $944.20 

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: