Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Goode – Decision dated 26 September 2014

hearingid: d521766b0af2d673fbdf26e4734bc1ee

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 19/09/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Goode - Decision dated 26 September 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand

Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

S Wallis – Stipendiary Steward

Informant

AND J Goode

– Owner/Trainer - NZGRA

Respondent

1. This is a hearing into the alleged breach of Rule 88.1 (y) by licensed Trainer Mr John Goode on 15th August 2014. Information no. A6319 alleges:

“That you failed to comply with the Board’s dress code when handling “Mr Johnny”, by wearing grey pants”.

The rule was read to the hearing and Mr Goode confirmed that he was familiar with and understood the rule.

2. Mr Wallis produced to the hearing a copy of Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s Dress Policy which, he confirmed had been gazetted. Mr Goode confirmed that he was aware of the dress code. The relevant part of the Dress Code reads:

“The minimum dress standard applicable is:

• Black trousers/slacks (no tracksuit pants or jeans….)

3. Mr Wallis then showed to the hearing video coverage of Mr Goode loading “Mr Johnny” into the start box, from which Mr Wallis asked the committee to observe that Mr Goode’s trousers were distinctively grey in colour. Mr Wallis also produced a transcript of an interview with Mr Goode conducted on 15th August 2014 in the presence of Mr Tony Music, Secretary of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club. Mr Goode was given the opportunity to read the transcript and he confirmed its contents. In the transcript, Mr Wallis observed that notwithstanding that there was a disagreement between him and Mr Goode with regard to the issue, that Mr Goode nonetheless accepted that his trousers were not black.

4. Mr Goode cross-examined Mr Wallis as to why he was not given a warning, and put it to Mr Wallis that Stipes’ Reports from recent meetings disclosed that some handlers were given warnings. Mr Wallis acknowledged that other handlers had been given warnings.

5. Mr Wallis then called Stipendiary Steward J McLaughlin to give evidence. Mr McLaughlin said that “some time ago”, he had given Mr Goode a “friendly reminder” that “it was about time” that Mr Goode upgraded his trousers. Mr Goode cross-examined Mr McLaughlin about this. He asked him when that discussion had taken place. Mr McLaughlin could not recall the time and date of the discussion. Mr Goode put it to Mr McLaughlin that he was mistaken. Mr McLaughlin was confident that such a discussion had taken place.

6. Mr Goode presented his defence. He said that his trousers were originally black and that they had faded to their present colour over a period of time. He argued quite forcibly that there were shades of black and that there is no such thing as absolute black. Mr Goode produced the trousers in question for the committee’s inspection.

Decision

This committee finds as a fact, from the video coverage of Mr Goode loading “Mr Johnny” into the start box, and from a visual observation of the trousers in question, that Mr Goode’s trousers on the 15th August were grey. We also note that Mr Goode accepted that in his interview with Mr Wallis.

Whilst the trousers in question may have originally been black, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that they are no longer black in colour as is required by the Dress Code of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. Therefore the trousers that Mr Goode was wearing when acting as a handler of “Mr Johnny” at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 15th August 2014 are no longer compliant.

The Dress Code policy demands black trousers. Common sense dictates that if trousers have faded in colour, that it is not incumbent on the Stipendiary Stewards to give warnings. It is incumbent on licence holders to be vigilant in their adherence to the Dress Code. Greyhound handlers are subject to this duty. We do not place any weight on Mr McLaughlin’s evidence.

The charge is found proved.

Submissions on Penalty

Mr Wallis observed that such an infringement of the Rules is usually dealt with by a Minor Infringement Notice and would have attracted a fine of $50. However, Mr Wallis drew to this Committee’s attention a recent decision of a Judicial Panel in RIU v O’C, which dealt with a breach of the Dress Code. In that case, the Judicial Committee observed:

“Whilst the Committee accepts, firstly, that the Stewards have a job to do and, secondly that a licensed person has a right to be heard, if he or she does not accept liability, the Committee does wish to record that a defended hearing, held on a non-raceday, of a charge which would have otherwise incurred a fine of $50 under the Minor Infringement Scheme is not a good use of the resources of either RIU or the JCA. In most instances, there is no defence to a charge under the Minor Infringement Scheme and licensed persons need to be aware that an unsuccessful defence to such a charge may result in a higher fine than that prescribed by the Scheme and/or an award of costs pursuant to Rule 92.12”.

Mr Wallis submitted that this hearing was, in terms of the decision of RIU v O’C, a waste of resources, and should have been dealt with by Minor Infringement Notice. He submitted that a fine was appropriate but the quantum should be at this Committee’s discretion.

Mr Goode submitted that he took the defence of the charge to the JCA “on principle” as he did not know what the “bar was for black”. He submitted that the offence was at the minor end of offending and that it was not deliberate. He said that if he had been warned then it would not have happened. He felt that a fine of $50 was at the upper limit.

Penalty Decision

This Committee finds that the breach was at the lower end of the scale and does not find any aggravating features which would warrant an uplift on the fine which we propose to impose.

The fine is $50.

Submissions on Costs

Mr Wallis did not make an application for costs in favour of the RIU.

Mr Goode was then invited to make submissions on costs in favour of the JCA, bearing in mind the comments made in case of RIU v O’C. He said that his case was a case that needed to be tested.

Decision on Costs

The issue of costs is one of discretion insofar as a hearing tribunal is concerned.

Mr Goode has been unsuccessful in his defence. This matter should have been dealt with as a minor infringement. It was not, and therefore costs follow the event. It has to be recognised that such a proceeding is a cost to the industry. This Committee emphasises that an award of costs is not to be read as a further penalty. The award will be a contribution to the costs involved of this proceeding and is set at $150.

Summary

Mr Goode is fined $50 and directed to pay costs to the JCA of $150.

KG Hales                SC Ching

Chairman               Committee Member

26 September 2014

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: