Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J and D Fahey – Decision dated 12 August 2018 – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA11616
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Authority (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) - Informant
AND
J AND D FAHEY - Respondents
Judicial Committee: Mr Stewart Ching (Chairman), Mr Greg Clapp (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr Scott Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Unit,
as the Informant
Venue: Rangiora Raceway
Date of Hearing: 12 August 2018
Date of Decision: 12 August 2018
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1] This Information was initially laid at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018 and was heard as a Non-Race day hearing at Rangiora Raceway on 12 August 2018.
2] An information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Wallis, against Licensed Trainers, J & D Fahey, alleging a breach of Rule 44.1 and 62.1(dd) in that the Fahey’s failed to present the correct greyhound to compete in a qualifying trial at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018.
3] Mr Fahey had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted. Mr Fahey had also endorsed the information that he did not wish to be present at the hearing. This was confirmed by Mr Wallis.
4] Rules 44.1 & 62.1.dd read as follows;
44.1 - The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall present the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 44.2.
62.1 .dd - Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she fails to comply with any policy, restriction or guideline punishable by a fine of $300.00 or less.
5] Mr Wallis gave evidence that the Faheys’ had correctly nominated the greyhound CRY LONELY to qualify at the Christchurch Greyhounds Meeting on 9 August 2018. He said that on inspection to identify the dog, prior to the heat, it was established that he had in fact brought the wrong dog for the qualifying trial. Mr Wallis stated that this breach would normally be dealt with as a Minor Infringement Notice, under Rule 62.1 (cc) with a fine of $300. He said that the Stewards believed that level of fine to be excessive for a breach at a qualifying trial.
6] Mr Fahey having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
7] Mr Wallis stated that Mr Fahey, on behalf of the training partnership, had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. He stated that the normal fine for a breach of this rule, being $300, was for a race day situation. Mr Wallis submitted that a fine of $150 was more appropriate for a breach in relation to a qualifying trial.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
8] In arriving at penalty, the Committee took into consideration all factors including Mr Fahey’s admission of the breach and the fact that it was a qualifying trial. This Committee agreed with Mr Wallis that a fine of $300 was excessive for a qualifying trial. We also agreed with the level submitted by Mr Wallis and therefore determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty.
PENALTY
9] The Fahey training partnership is fined the sum of $150.
Stewart Ching
Chair
Dated at Christchurch this 12th day of August 2018
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 14/08/2018
Publish Date: 14/08/2018
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: 1fef18782a6b4d3a488371fc9382400d
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/08/2018
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J and D Fahey - Decision dated 12 August 2018 - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Authority (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) - Informant
AND
J AND D FAHEY - Respondents
Judicial Committee: Mr Stewart Ching (Chairman), Mr Greg Clapp (Committee Member)
Appearing: Mr Scott Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Unit,
as the Informant
Venue: Rangiora Raceway
Date of Hearing: 12 August 2018
Date of Decision: 12 August 2018
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1] This Information was initially laid at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018 and was heard as a Non-Race day hearing at Rangiora Raceway on 12 August 2018.
2] An information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Wallis, against Licensed Trainers, J & D Fahey, alleging a breach of Rule 44.1 and 62.1(dd) in that the Fahey’s failed to present the correct greyhound to compete in a qualifying trial at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018.
3] Mr Fahey had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted. Mr Fahey had also endorsed the information that he did not wish to be present at the hearing. This was confirmed by Mr Wallis.
4] Rules 44.1 & 62.1.dd read as follows;
44.1 - The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall present the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 44.2.
62.1 .dd - Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she fails to comply with any policy, restriction or guideline punishable by a fine of $300.00 or less.
5] Mr Wallis gave evidence that the Faheys’ had correctly nominated the greyhound CRY LONELY to qualify at the Christchurch Greyhounds Meeting on 9 August 2018. He said that on inspection to identify the dog, prior to the heat, it was established that he had in fact brought the wrong dog for the qualifying trial. Mr Wallis stated that this breach would normally be dealt with as a Minor Infringement Notice, under Rule 62.1 (cc) with a fine of $300. He said that the Stewards believed that level of fine to be excessive for a breach at a qualifying trial.
6] Mr Fahey having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
7] Mr Wallis stated that Mr Fahey, on behalf of the training partnership, had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. He stated that the normal fine for a breach of this rule, being $300, was for a race day situation. Mr Wallis submitted that a fine of $150 was more appropriate for a breach in relation to a qualifying trial.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
8] In arriving at penalty, the Committee took into consideration all factors including Mr Fahey’s admission of the breach and the fact that it was a qualifying trial. This Committee agreed with Mr Wallis that a fine of $300 was excessive for a qualifying trial. We also agreed with the level submitted by Mr Wallis and therefore determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty.
PENALTY
9] The Fahey training partnership is fined the sum of $150.
Stewart Ching
Chair
Dated at Christchurch this 12th day of August 2018
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: