Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney – Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 17 September 2014 (No. 2)

hearingid: 546e443430a685945d304dba481ea8a1

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 28/08/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney - Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 17 September 2014 (No. 2)

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. A6312

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.p of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing in that he failed to comply with the lawful order of a Steward 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 one prior offence in 2008 under this Rule where the Respondent was fined $150.00 on the day. On appeal, the fine was upheld and costs of $125.00 were awarded against the Respondent.

[5] Although the first offence was some six years ago it does nonetheless demonstrate a propensity for the Respondent to ignore lawful and reasonable requests made of him.

[6] With respect to this matter, it is the Informant’s position that the Stewards are the frontline troops of the industry and are obligated to regulate, in an orderly way, the running of race meetings. It is submitted that any attempt to disrupt the work which falls to the Stewards should be regarded as an affront to not only the Stewards but also to the industry and accordingly should be treated with commensurate seriousness by Judicial Committees.

[7] On this occasion, the Respondent disrupted the smooth functioning of the Stewards attending to the meeting by having them expend time pursuing this matter when such time could have been much more judiciously employed on other important issues.

[8] The Respondent elected to wilfully disobey a direction of the Stewards and this, it is submitted, should draw a sanction reflecting the seriousness of the matter.

[9] In addressing the aggravating and mitigating matters, the Informant submits that because the Respondent was asked on two occasions, and failed to present himself until 1 hour 55 minutes had elapsed, then this should be considered an aggravating factor.

[10] It is noted that, during the time between being called to appear and finally appearing the Respondent continued to trial dogs which, it is submitted, shows blatant disregard towards the Stewards and their ability to conduct a race meeting.

[11] The Informant submits the need in this case to send a message not only to the Respondent personally but also those associated with the industry that this type of conduct must carry with it substantial sanctions because of the need for integrity of the Stewards and of racing as a whole.

[12] It is the Informant’s position that, having regard to all factors, including previous penalties, a monetary penalty of not less than $400.00 should be imposed.

Submissions of the Respondent

[13] Mr McInerney made the following submissions:

“Although I denied the charge the facts of the case were not disputed. But I strongly submit that the offence was not so serious to warrant the remarks made by the Informant in [paragraph [5] above]. I have taken the decision to heart and recognise my behaviour was unacceptable. But I submit it was at the lower end of the scale. The Committee’s work was interrupted and inconvenienced and for that I humbly apologise. My 2 hour delay in appearing at the Stewards’ Room in response to their request really was inexcusable as the Committee has found. I am very well aware that the Stewards have duties to perform on the day and really I should have appeared as soon as I was summonsed notwithstanding my honest but mistaken belief that my presence at the trialling was more important. I admit I have a bounden duty under the Rules and will not forget my obligations in the future.

I take issue with the Informant’s submission that I have a “propensity” to ignore lawful and reasonable requests made of me. I submit this is unfair. My only prior offence against the Rules occurred at a race meeting in Palmerston North on 29 October 2007, nearly 7 years ago. The decision of the Appeals Tribunal on finding proven the charge laid under the old Rule 88 (p) was a modest fine of $150. The facts were that I and another trainer objected to running our greyhounds on the grounds of safety. We maintained the track was unsafe and advised the starter that we would not box our dogs. The Tribunal on appeal after a lengthy hearing found that my action was tantamount to a refusal of an official’s direct request and unjustified but stated:

In reaching this finding we acknowledge that the Appellant was acting in the best interests of his dog however his actions on the 29th October last has caused a race programme to be delayed and this has had an impact on the day’s racing.

My current offence did not in any way have any impact on the day’s racing and with due respect to the Informant’s submission I contend his statements are most unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.

I do not disagree with the Informant’s position as to Stewards’ role in the industry as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his submission (above) but the Informant submits to the Committee that my action was one of wilfulness on my part using the phrase a “blatant disregard”. I must, again with due respect, take issue with those words. With respect he goes too far and his suggestion that this is a case that should not set a precedent and my culpability is of the higher order is unfair and unreasonable.

As to penalty, I submit the proposal suggested by the Informant is slightly too high and something of the order of $250 as a reminder might meet the case.

I wish now at this point to state my personal position because it does have a bearing on this matter.

I am 29 years of age. I have been a race day handler, trainer and foreman since the age of 12. My workload is high and I believe I am a credit to the industry. In the past season the kennel had 252 individual dogs for 5,454 starts. I am passionate about my work. The night before the day in question there were races at Addington. I did not get to bed until nearly midnight and was up again at 5.40am. I had 20 race dogs that day and 18 to trial after the last race. I was stressed and fatigue had kicked in. All in all I honestly thought I was doing the right thing putting the animals’ welfare first. Clearly I was wrong as the Committee has found.

The fact of the matter is that this occurrence, although not a hanging offence, is a low point in my career. I am now at an age when I should have known better and I do request the Committee to take into account my remorse when fixing penalty”.

[14] 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

[15] 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 Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.

[16] The aggravating factors submitted by the Informant were, essentially, that the Respondent had breached the Rule previously and that, in respect of this breach, he had been requested on two occasions (2.20pm and 3.20pm) to attend in the Stewards’ Room before, finally, presenting himself at 4.15pm.

[17] The second of those, the Committee agrees, is an aggravating factor. Mr McInerney’s failure to present himself until 4.15pm showed a blatant disregard for the lawful order of a Steward. Mr McInerney has objected to the use by the Informant of the words “blatant disregard” but we accept that those words are applicable to Mr McInerney’s behaviour. Mr McInerney has frankly acknowledged that he was wrong and that his explanation, that he was trialling dogs, did not justify his failure to obey that lawful order.

[18] However, the Committee does not regard Mr McInerney’s previous breach of Rule 88.1.p as being an aggravating factor. We do not accept that that breach, committed almost 7 years ago (October 2007) shows a “propensity to ignore lawful and reasonable requests” of Stewards. Furthermore, the circumstances of that breach were vastly different from the present case. In arriving at penalty, the Committee has ignored that 2007 breach by Mr McInerney.

[19] For his part, Mr McInerney has acknowledged that his behaviour was “unacceptable” and, in his submissions, he has apologised for it. He submitted that the breach was “at the lower end of that scale”. The Committee does not accept that. Mr McInerney acknowledged the role that Stewards had to perform on raceday but pleaded an “honest but mistaken belief” that it was more important to oversee the trialling of greyhounds following the last race. He should not have done so. He has undertaken not to forget his obligations in the future and we need to impose a penalty that will deter him from doing so.

[20] 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.

[21] 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 and we are prepared to take it into account.

[22] The Informant did not provide the Committee with details of any previous penalties imposed for breaches of the Rule. However, the fine of $150 imposed in the 2007 case under the same Rule is of some assistance.

[23] The Informant has submitted that a fine of not less than $400 is an appropriate penalty. The Respondent has, in turn, submitted that a fine of $400 is “slightly too high” and that a fine “in the order of $250” would be more appropriate.

[24] Weighing up all of the matters referred to above, the Committee has determined that an appropriate penalty, and one that satisfies the purposes referred to in paragraph [15] above, is a fine of $300.00.

Penalty

[25] Mr McInerney is fined the sum of $300.00.

Costs

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

[27] 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: