Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney – Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 17 September 2014 (No. 1)

hearingid: 13ea44c53ebb4d28a90db04a92cae088

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 13/09/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney - Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 17 September 2014 (No. 1)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6311 

BETWEEN J M McLAUGHLIN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND JONATHON McINERNEY of Darfield, Licensed Person

Respondent

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Panellist

Date of Hearing: 23 July 2014

Date of Decision: 14 August 2014

Date of Penalty Decision: 17 September 2014

PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] In a written decision dated 14th August 2014, the Committee found, after a defended hearing on 23rd July 2014, that the Respondent had committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing in that he had committed an improper act by removing the blinkers of JACK’S A JEWEL, trained by A C Roberts, at the lure after Race 8 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting at Addington Raceway on 27th June 2014.

[2] The Committee invited both parties to file submissions in relation to penalty with the Judicial Control Authority. Submissions have now been received from both parties.

The Penalty Rule

[3] Rule 89.1 provides as follows:

Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:

a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or

b. Suspension; and/or

c. Disqualification; and/or

d. Warning Off.

Submissions of Informant

[4] Firstly, with regard to the Respondent’s record, this demonstrates no prior offending under this Rule.

[5] However, this offence, it is submitted, is of significance as it is premised on behaviour and on this occasion this could have led to a nasty incident with a greyhound running free without a muzzle on. This is acknowledged by Mr McInerney.

[6] Aggravating factors are, firstly, that this act was committed in full view of the general public via Trackside and through being witnessed by licence holders. Secondly, and of particular significance, is that the Respondent committed his act by interfering with another person’s greyhound.

[7] Other aggravating factors, the Informant submitted, were that Mr McInerney failed to acknowledge his culpability despite the video evidence clearly showing him removing the muzzle and blinkers and that he placed handlers and greyhounds in danger when he released JACK’S A JEWEL, minus the muzzle, back to the lure.

[8] The Informant submitted that there can be no room in greyhound racing for licensed persons to act in this manner. Stewards are specifically charged with the responsibility of helping to ensure proper practice prevails in the industry. The actions of Mr McInerney fell well short of what is expected of any licensed person.

[9] The Informant submitted that there has not previously been any similar offending of this nature in the industry and, therefore, no historical guidance is available for reference.

[10] It is the Informant’s position that a very clear signal needs to be sent to not only the Respondent but also to the entire greyhound racing industry that such conduct is completely unacceptable and that significant sanctions will be imposed upon those who conduct themselves or consider conducting themselves in a similar manner.

[11] The Informant submitted that, having regard to all of the circumstances, a monetary penalty is appropriate – a fine of not less than $750.00.

Submissions of the Respondent

[12] Mr McInerney made the following submissions:

“I accept the Committee’s decision. It sets out the evidence I gave at the hearing to which the Committee has given due consideration. The facts of the case are set out in the decision and are not disputed. Prior to the start of the race I questioned the legitimacy of the type of blinkers worn by Mr Roberts’ dog. I observed the inside blinker was worn lower than the outside blinker. My objection was that one blinker was sticking out flat and could impede my dog from passing it in a race. I was informed those blinkers were approved by the Stewards. The improper act alleged was that after the race at the lure I removed the blinkers and by doing so also removed the muzzle. The Committee has defined the words of the Rule in its decision and I cannot find fault with the meanings set out.

The Committee in paragraph 35 of the decision I think sums up the nub of the case which I accept in its entirety. My actions, as the Committee has stated, were unacceptable.

I am informed by the Stewards that since the occurrence which gave rise to this charge they have reconsidered and clarified the matter of variable blinkers and I am told that the type of blinkers which I questioned on the day would now not be allowed by a dog in a race.

I have read the Informant’s submission on penalty. I accept, looking at the incident in hindsight, my actions fell somewhat short of the requirements of a licensed person although, at the time, I thought, as my evidence showed, there was justification and excuse. I now know better.

The incident has given rise to precedent. The Informant, in its submissions, has gone to some lengths to state and set out a warning to the greyhound racing fraternity. The Informant recommends a fine and I have no quarrel with that. Its size may be a bit steep and I submit that while the penalty of a fine is proper in the circumstances at the same time this is not a case to set such a high tariff. I have learned my lesson.

As to my personal circumstances, I believe I have a good record in greyhound racing as the testimonials produced to the Committee show. I am 29 years of age. I have been a raceday handler since age 12, starting by catching for a year and then boxing from the age of 13. I left school at 16 to work full time in my father’s kennels. Subsequently I moved to Auckland and trained with good results. At 20, I moved back to work in the Darfield kennels becoming kennel foreman six years ago.

I believe my future in greyhound racing is good. I submit the charges I have faced before the Committee may be a blemish but the prognosis is very good indeed and I want to be a credit to the sport and a leading light in it.

In mitigation, I submit that the night before the particular day on which this charge arose there had been races at Addington and I had had a busy night. I had got to bed just before midnight and was up at 5.50am next morning. Looking back I can see I was stressed and fatigue was setting in.

My life is racing. It is something I am passionate about. I hold animal welfare in very high regard and I love my work. I am remorseful of the situation and I am sorry it has gone this far.

I am disappointed that my record is going to be blotted by my behaviour in this case as I have devoted my life to greyhound racing. I have had plenty of exciting moments in the industry I love and there have been admittedly some lows but this would have to be one of the lowest points of my career.

I ask the Committee to take this into account when fixing penalty.”

[13] Mr McInerney produced seven character references from some prominent persons in the greyhound racing industry, all referees speaking very highly of him. He was variously described as being “industrious”, “honest and trustworthy”, “sensible and mature”, “astute, hard working, organised and of solid character” and “a true professional”.

Reasons for Penalty

[14] In determining penalty, the Committee has had regard to the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Informant in his submissions emphasised the need for deterrence (paragraph [10] above). The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.

[15] Mr McInerney denied the charge in the face of what, the Committee found, was quite compelling video evidence. A person always has the right to deny a charge and put the prosecution to the task of proving its allegation. However, this does not necessarily mean that that person does not accept responsibility for his or her particular actions and/or has no remorse.

[16] The Committee gives Mr McInerney credit for his very frank acknowledgement, in his written submissions, of his wrongdoing and remorse for it. It would appear, from a perusal of the references submitted by Mr McInerney, that the offending is quite out of character for him. The Committee also accepts that he takes pride in what he does and that this blot on his otherwise good record is a source of some embarrassment to him. We noted that he had not previously offended – a mitigating factor. Furthermore, he stated that he had “learned his lesson” and we believe that he is genuine in saying this.

[17] The Committee has noted the explanation given by Mr McInerney that he was “stressed and fatigued”. This could go some way to explain his behaviour at the lure after Race 8 on this day. We did give some weight to this factor.

[18] To address the specific aggravating factors submitted by the Informant, it is an aggravating factor that Mr McInerney’s actions could be seen by viewers on “Trackside”. The other aggravating factor referred to by the Informant - that Mr McInerney had interfered with another trainer’s greyhound - was more a factor in his actions being held to be “improper” and, therefore, an element of the charge rather than an aggravating factor per se.

[19] The Informant was not able to refer the Committee to any penalties imposed in previous similar cases of committing an improper act in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing. The Committee is aware of a recent case of a breach of Rule 88.1.o (RIU v F, September 2014) in which the Respondent, who had used a kick on an unregistered greyhound which had played up when being boxed at an unofficial trial, admitted the charge and was fined the sum of $300.

[20] The Informant has submitted that a fine of not less than $750 is appropriate. Mr McInerney submitted that a fine is “proper in the circumstances” but that such a “high tariff” should not be set in this case.

[21] Weighing up of all of the matters referred to above, the Committee has determined that an appropriate penalty in this case, and one which satisfies the purposes referred to in paragraph [14], is a fine of $500.00.

Penalty

[22] Mr McInerney is fined the sum of $500.00.

Costs

[23] The Informant did not seek an order for costs.

[24] The Respondent is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $180.00 to the Judicial Control Authority towards the hearing costs of that body.

R G McKENZIE               S C CHING

Chairman                      Panellist 

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: