Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v G Laursen – 15 November 2011 – Decision
ID: JCA12118
Decision:
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MR GRANT LAURSEN
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman), - Mr N McCutcheon Committee Member
Appearing: Mr C George (as the Informant) – Mr J Tannahill (for the Respondent)
Registrar: Mr N Goodwin
Also Present: Mr G Laursen, Mr R Neal
Venue: Stewards Lounge, Awapuni Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 15 November 2011
Date of Decision: 15 November 2011
___________________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
___________________________________________________________________________
[1] Mr Laursen appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge(s):
1. THAT on Tuesday 4th October 2011 you, when found to be riding trackwork at Foxton Racecourse, were in breach of Rule 802 (1) (a) in that you failed to comply with directives given to you by Stipendiary Steward John Oatham. Particulars of the charge are;
a. THAT on Friday 23rd September at Otaki racecourse, following your admission of being knocked out on Saturday 17th September 2011, you were directed not to ride a horse until the expiration of the mandatory three week stand down period which was Saturday 8th October, and that by riding work on Tuesday 4th October 2011 you failed to comply with the said directive.
b. And THAT you failed to obtain a medical clearance prior to resuming riding horses after being directed to do so.
[2] The rule reads as follows:
Rule 802 (1) (a) - “A person commits a breach of these Rules who:
acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;”
[3] Mr George advised that after further consideration, the RIU sought leave from the judicial committee to withdraw the first charge labelled (a). The committee accepted this application for which leave to withdraw the first charge was granted.
[4] Through Mr Tannahill as counsel, Mr Laursen admitted the remaining charge: “THAT you failed to obtain a medical clearance prior to resuming riding horses after being directed to do so.” As the breach is admitted, we thus find the charge proved.
[5] Mr Tannahill also accepted that all procedural matters were conceded and that he did not intend to raise any procedural points in relation to this hearing.
Facts:
[6] Mr George provided a summary of the circumstances leading to the charge being laid, and also provided a signed statement from Senior Stipendiary Steward John Oatham. As a matter of clarity, Senior Stipendiary Steward Ross Neal was also present to give evidence relating to the facts of the matter, if required.
[7] A précis of the relevant aspects, as they relate to the charge before the committee, follows:
[8] On Friday 23 September 2011, Mr Laursen was in attendance at the Levin Racing Club’s meeting at Otaki. As the Stewards had not spoken directly to Mr Laursen, regarding an accident the previous week, he was requested to appear in the Stewards room to explain what had actually taken place on the morning of the accident on the 17th September. Present in the room were Stipendiary Stewards John Oatham and Ross Neal.
[9] The thrust of Mr Laursen’s explanation was that when he was loading a horse on to a float for transportation to a meeting, the horse had swung around and struck him in the head knocking him out for a period. Mr Laursen stated he was unsure how long he was knocked out for but he came around when his partner attended to him.
[10] Mr Laursen then stated to the Stewards that he had been taken to Palmerston North Hospital by his partner for medical attention. When asked for medical documentation relating to the injury, Mr Laursen stated that although he had gone to Palmerston North, he had begun to feel better and prior to reaching the hospital had elected to turn around and go home. Therefore he was not attended to by medical personnel.
[11] Mr Laursen was advised by Stipendiary Steward Oatham that as a consequence of this incident, he would be required to provide a medical clearance prior to resuming track riding.
[12] On Tuesday 4th October 2011 when attending trackwork at the Foxton Racing Club, Mr Laursen was observed by Stipendiary Steward Neal to be mounted on a horse riding trackwork, without having produced a medical clearance to do so.
[13] Mr Laursen, at the time of being seen, was told by Steward Neal that he wished to speak with him about the matter; however when arriving at Mr Laursen’s stables some minutes later he could not be located. The stables were re-visited some 15 minutes later and Mr Laursen was still absent.
[14] When given the opportunity to seek clarification on any matters raised by the Informant, Mr Tannahill asked whether a medical clearance had been since received. Mr George confirmed that a clearance had been received from Mr Laursen, albeit after a significant amount of time had elapsed since Mr Laursen had resumed track riding.
[15] When given the opportunity to address the committee, Mr Tannahill submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Respondent to flout the rules, rather that he was under a misunderstanding of the situation. He also conceded that Mr Laursen felt aggrieved as to why the rules should apply to him as a trainer and track work rider, but now fully understood that regardless of his status he was fully bound by the rules.
Penalty Submissions by Informant:
[16] Mr George submitted that the RIU did wish to raise a couple of points for the committee’s consideration in assessing the level of penalty.
[17] The RIU deemed the breach of this particular rule as being fairly serious on the underlying basis of safety which is paramount in the RIU’s approach to enforcing the rules of racing. Mr Laursen knew he was required to gain a medical certificate of fitness prior to undertaking riding work. Mr Laursen decided to go against such a directive.
[18] When participants are asked to get a medical clearance it is done so to protect the safety of themselves and others at the track. The injury incurred by Mr Laursen was a head injury, which could potentially affect one’s balance and ability to judge things – attributes required to ride in a safe manner. This is a reason why stewards insist on medical clearances, so they can protect the safety and well-being of industry participants.
[19] The specific Rule offence listings for breaches of Rule 802 (1) (a) reflected a range of monetary penalties. A recent penalty of $750 was imposed in the case of Trainer ‘C’; where a trainer refused to scratch a horse as directed by the Stewards. Mr George submitted that such a breach had minimal impact on the industry whereas Mr Laursen’s breach could have caused serious harm to himself and others.
[20] It was the informant’s position that Mr Laursen’s breach was a significant one, and that a deterrent for others was required. Mr George rationalised this on the basis that when a reasonable directive was issued, industry participants needed to ensure they followed such directives. It was for these reasons that a fine in the region of $1000 was submitted.
[21] In response to a question from the chairman, Mr George clarified the justification for submitting a penalty much higher than a previous penalty imposed on Jockey ‘B’ for failing to obtain a medical certificate as directed by the stewards. It was submitted that Jockey ‘B’ failed to arrive at the racecourse with a medical clearance; however Jockey ‘B’ obtained a medical clearance prior to recommencing riding, whereas Mr Laursen did not.
[22] The RIU was also seeking costs in the amount of $300 for flight costs for Mr George to travel to Palmerston North to attend the hearing.
Penalty Submissions by Respondent:
[23] Mr Tannahill addressed the committee on the issue of penalty. He asked the committee to take Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach and that he has no previous breaches of this rule into consideration. Counsel also advised that Mr Laursen is a trainer who has learnt a lot from this experience. He was also someone who currently lives ‘hand to mouth’ as a trainer and is not in a strong financial position at the moment.
[24] With reference to the specific details of the Jockey ‘B’ case, Mr Tannahill conceded that Mr Laursen’s charge appeared to be of a more serious nature.
[25] He also submitted that to reflect the Judicial Control Authority’s displeasure at this type of activity, a monetary penalty should be considered. However, Mr Tannahill rejected Mr George’s quantum of fine and suggested that a fine in the region of $400-$500 would be more appropriate.
[26] In relation to costs, Mr Tannahill believed that it was not necessary for Mr George to personally attend the hearing and that costs would not have to be sought if a steward based in the Central Districts region had presented the RIU’s case.
Decision:
[27] In coming to our decision we have carefully considered all of the submissions placed before us.
[28] In mitigation, the committee notes Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach and his conduct within the context of the hearing being of an exemplary nature.
[29] It is important that as a licence-holder Mr Laursen familiarises himself with the rules of racing, as he is bound by the rules and has an obligation to understand them. This is something that he alone has to take responsibility for.
[30] The judicial committee accepts that the issue currently before it is an issue of safety. The committee also has sympathy with the RIU’s approach of insuring that safety is maintained within the industry.
[31] Mr Laursen’s neglect in not providing a medical clearance, when directed to do so by stewards, could have had a significant impact not only upon himself, but indeed upon others, riding on the track.
[32] The committee has considered the case of Jockey ‘B’ in relation to a breach of Rule 802 (1) (a), and whilst this relates specifically to failing to obtain a medical clearance, we accept that this case currently before us falls within a different category, which accordingly requires a higher level of sanction to be imposed.
Penalty:
[33] Taking all matters into account we are satisfied that a monetary penalty is the most appropriate means to act as a deterrent on this occasion. In establishing a quantum, the committee has adopted a starting point of $750.
[34] Taking into consideration the factors of mitigation, and specifically Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach, we impose a penalty of $600.
Costs:
[35] The committee considers a contribution towards the Informant’s costs as appropriate, and awards costs in favour of the RIU of $250.
[36] As this matter was heard on a non-race day, the Respondent is also ordered to pay costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the amount of $200.
Mr Tangi Utikere Mr Noel McCutcheon
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 14/11/2011
Publish Date: 14/11/2011
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: 343615f43832bd913f202baf25f5e08b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/11/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v G Laursen - 15 November 2011 - Decision
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MR GRANT LAURSEN
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman), - Mr N McCutcheon Committee Member
Appearing: Mr C George (as the Informant) – Mr J Tannahill (for the Respondent)
Registrar: Mr N Goodwin
Also Present: Mr G Laursen, Mr R Neal
Venue: Stewards Lounge, Awapuni Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 15 November 2011
Date of Decision: 15 November 2011
___________________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
___________________________________________________________________________
[1] Mr Laursen appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge(s):
1. THAT on Tuesday 4th October 2011 you, when found to be riding trackwork at Foxton Racecourse, were in breach of Rule 802 (1) (a) in that you failed to comply with directives given to you by Stipendiary Steward John Oatham. Particulars of the charge are;
a. THAT on Friday 23rd September at Otaki racecourse, following your admission of being knocked out on Saturday 17th September 2011, you were directed not to ride a horse until the expiration of the mandatory three week stand down period which was Saturday 8th October, and that by riding work on Tuesday 4th October 2011 you failed to comply with the said directive.
b. And THAT you failed to obtain a medical clearance prior to resuming riding horses after being directed to do so.
[2] The rule reads as follows:
Rule 802 (1) (a) - “A person commits a breach of these Rules who:
acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;”
[3] Mr George advised that after further consideration, the RIU sought leave from the judicial committee to withdraw the first charge labelled (a). The committee accepted this application for which leave to withdraw the first charge was granted.
[4] Through Mr Tannahill as counsel, Mr Laursen admitted the remaining charge: “THAT you failed to obtain a medical clearance prior to resuming riding horses after being directed to do so.” As the breach is admitted, we thus find the charge proved.
[5] Mr Tannahill also accepted that all procedural matters were conceded and that he did not intend to raise any procedural points in relation to this hearing.
Facts:
[6] Mr George provided a summary of the circumstances leading to the charge being laid, and also provided a signed statement from Senior Stipendiary Steward John Oatham. As a matter of clarity, Senior Stipendiary Steward Ross Neal was also present to give evidence relating to the facts of the matter, if required.
[7] A précis of the relevant aspects, as they relate to the charge before the committee, follows:
[8] On Friday 23 September 2011, Mr Laursen was in attendance at the Levin Racing Club’s meeting at Otaki. As the Stewards had not spoken directly to Mr Laursen, regarding an accident the previous week, he was requested to appear in the Stewards room to explain what had actually taken place on the morning of the accident on the 17th September. Present in the room were Stipendiary Stewards John Oatham and Ross Neal.
[9] The thrust of Mr Laursen’s explanation was that when he was loading a horse on to a float for transportation to a meeting, the horse had swung around and struck him in the head knocking him out for a period. Mr Laursen stated he was unsure how long he was knocked out for but he came around when his partner attended to him.
[10] Mr Laursen then stated to the Stewards that he had been taken to Palmerston North Hospital by his partner for medical attention. When asked for medical documentation relating to the injury, Mr Laursen stated that although he had gone to Palmerston North, he had begun to feel better and prior to reaching the hospital had elected to turn around and go home. Therefore he was not attended to by medical personnel.
[11] Mr Laursen was advised by Stipendiary Steward Oatham that as a consequence of this incident, he would be required to provide a medical clearance prior to resuming track riding.
[12] On Tuesday 4th October 2011 when attending trackwork at the Foxton Racing Club, Mr Laursen was observed by Stipendiary Steward Neal to be mounted on a horse riding trackwork, without having produced a medical clearance to do so.
[13] Mr Laursen, at the time of being seen, was told by Steward Neal that he wished to speak with him about the matter; however when arriving at Mr Laursen’s stables some minutes later he could not be located. The stables were re-visited some 15 minutes later and Mr Laursen was still absent.
[14] When given the opportunity to seek clarification on any matters raised by the Informant, Mr Tannahill asked whether a medical clearance had been since received. Mr George confirmed that a clearance had been received from Mr Laursen, albeit after a significant amount of time had elapsed since Mr Laursen had resumed track riding.
[15] When given the opportunity to address the committee, Mr Tannahill submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Respondent to flout the rules, rather that he was under a misunderstanding of the situation. He also conceded that Mr Laursen felt aggrieved as to why the rules should apply to him as a trainer and track work rider, but now fully understood that regardless of his status he was fully bound by the rules.
Penalty Submissions by Informant:
[16] Mr George submitted that the RIU did wish to raise a couple of points for the committee’s consideration in assessing the level of penalty.
[17] The RIU deemed the breach of this particular rule as being fairly serious on the underlying basis of safety which is paramount in the RIU’s approach to enforcing the rules of racing. Mr Laursen knew he was required to gain a medical certificate of fitness prior to undertaking riding work. Mr Laursen decided to go against such a directive.
[18] When participants are asked to get a medical clearance it is done so to protect the safety of themselves and others at the track. The injury incurred by Mr Laursen was a head injury, which could potentially affect one’s balance and ability to judge things – attributes required to ride in a safe manner. This is a reason why stewards insist on medical clearances, so they can protect the safety and well-being of industry participants.
[19] The specific Rule offence listings for breaches of Rule 802 (1) (a) reflected a range of monetary penalties. A recent penalty of $750 was imposed in the case of Trainer ‘C’; where a trainer refused to scratch a horse as directed by the Stewards. Mr George submitted that such a breach had minimal impact on the industry whereas Mr Laursen’s breach could have caused serious harm to himself and others.
[20] It was the informant’s position that Mr Laursen’s breach was a significant one, and that a deterrent for others was required. Mr George rationalised this on the basis that when a reasonable directive was issued, industry participants needed to ensure they followed such directives. It was for these reasons that a fine in the region of $1000 was submitted.
[21] In response to a question from the chairman, Mr George clarified the justification for submitting a penalty much higher than a previous penalty imposed on Jockey ‘B’ for failing to obtain a medical certificate as directed by the stewards. It was submitted that Jockey ‘B’ failed to arrive at the racecourse with a medical clearance; however Jockey ‘B’ obtained a medical clearance prior to recommencing riding, whereas Mr Laursen did not.
[22] The RIU was also seeking costs in the amount of $300 for flight costs for Mr George to travel to Palmerston North to attend the hearing.
Penalty Submissions by Respondent:
[23] Mr Tannahill addressed the committee on the issue of penalty. He asked the committee to take Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach and that he has no previous breaches of this rule into consideration. Counsel also advised that Mr Laursen is a trainer who has learnt a lot from this experience. He was also someone who currently lives ‘hand to mouth’ as a trainer and is not in a strong financial position at the moment.
[24] With reference to the specific details of the Jockey ‘B’ case, Mr Tannahill conceded that Mr Laursen’s charge appeared to be of a more serious nature.
[25] He also submitted that to reflect the Judicial Control Authority’s displeasure at this type of activity, a monetary penalty should be considered. However, Mr Tannahill rejected Mr George’s quantum of fine and suggested that a fine in the region of $400-$500 would be more appropriate.
[26] In relation to costs, Mr Tannahill believed that it was not necessary for Mr George to personally attend the hearing and that costs would not have to be sought if a steward based in the Central Districts region had presented the RIU’s case.
Decision:
[27] In coming to our decision we have carefully considered all of the submissions placed before us.
[28] In mitigation, the committee notes Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach and his conduct within the context of the hearing being of an exemplary nature.
[29] It is important that as a licence-holder Mr Laursen familiarises himself with the rules of racing, as he is bound by the rules and has an obligation to understand them. This is something that he alone has to take responsibility for.
[30] The judicial committee accepts that the issue currently before it is an issue of safety. The committee also has sympathy with the RIU’s approach of insuring that safety is maintained within the industry.
[31] Mr Laursen’s neglect in not providing a medical clearance, when directed to do so by stewards, could have had a significant impact not only upon himself, but indeed upon others, riding on the track.
[32] The committee has considered the case of Jockey ‘B’ in relation to a breach of Rule 802 (1) (a), and whilst this relates specifically to failing to obtain a medical clearance, we accept that this case currently before us falls within a different category, which accordingly requires a higher level of sanction to be imposed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[33] Taking all matters into account we are satisfied that a monetary penalty is the most appropriate means to act as a deterrent on this occasion. In establishing a quantum, the committee has adopted a starting point of $750.
[34] Taking into consideration the factors of mitigation, and specifically Mr Laursen’s admittance of the breach, we impose a penalty of $600.
Costs:
[35] The committee considers a contribution towards the Informant’s costs as appropriate, and awards costs in favour of the RIU of $250.
[36] As this matter was heard on a non-race day, the Respondent is also ordered to pay costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the amount of $200.
Mr Tangi Utikere Mr Noel McCutcheon
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 802(1)(a)
Informant: Racing Integrity Unit
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr C George - For the Informant, Mr G Laursen - Respondent, Mr J Tannahill - For the Respondent, Mr N Goodwin - Registrar, Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr G Laursen - Licensed 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: