Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Smith – Decision dated 14 May 2016 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie

hearingid: da273206b55d94c60b2ff312ed7bc9fb

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 16/05/2016

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J Smith - Decision dated 14 May 2016 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie

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. A1500 

BETWEEN R A QUIRK,

Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND J SMITH, Licensed Starter

Respondent

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

Present: Mr R A Quirk, the Informant

Date of Hearing: 14 May 2016

Date of Decision: 14 May 2016

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] Information No. A1500 alleges that in Race 12, Snow-e Muscle, Energy & Fertility Sprint, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 5th May 2016, Mr Smith committed a breach of Rule 87.1.o in that, as the official starter for the race, he did a thing that was negligent in relation to greyhound racing in that he “failed to switch the starting boxes to automatic mode resulting in the lids failing to open and a false start declared thus causing a delay to the start when all dogs were removed and vet checked”.

[2] The information was completed on the day of the meeting and served on Mr Smith the next day, 6th May. Mr Evans had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule.

[3] The charge was heard at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC meeting at Addington Raceway on Saturday, 14th May 2016. Mr Quirk informed the Committee that Mr Smith did not wish to attend the hearing of the charge.

The Rule

[4] Rule 87 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:

87.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:

(o) has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.

Evidence of the Informant

[5] Mr Quirk explained to the Committee that the Club had recently installed new starting boxes at the 295 metres start. On the top of the boxes was a new shelter that had just been erected. A chain, that is pulled by the starter, runs across from that shelter from near the inside box to ensure that no handler gets onto the track. It is a safety measure put in place by the Club, Mr Quirk said.

[6] Also on the new boxes are two switches – one to change the light from orange to green to show the lure driver to start the race, the other to switch the starting boxes between automatic and manual mode, Mr Quirk said.

[7] Mr Smith had boxed all runners and was under some pressure to put the chain across. He then went to hit the light switch but, in error, switched the wrong one, switching the starting mode from automatic to manual. He realised his mistake and immediately switched the light on, without realising that the starting mode had been switched to manual, Mr Quirk said.

[8] It was purely an “accident” on Mr Smith’s part, Mr Quirk said. Unfortunately, the field had heard the lure go past and had tried to go but, of course, the boxes had not opened. The runners were all removed and vet checked and, as a result, the race started 4-5 minutes late, he said. None of the greyhounds was required to be late scratched, Mr Quirk said.

Decision

[9] Mr Smith having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.

Penalty Submissions

[10] Mr Quirk referred to a very recent case in which a trainer had been fined $100 by a Judicial Committee for loading a dog into the wrong box. In that case, all of the runners had to be taken out of the boxes and vet checked. Mr Quirk submitted that the circumstances were similar.

[11] Mr Smith has been the Club’s starter for “quite some time”, with no prior breaches. Mr Smith is very good at what he does and had admitted the breach at the first opportunity, Mr Quirk said.

Reasons for Penalty

[12] There was nothing in the way of precedent for penalty for a breach of the Rule with similar facts.

[13] Mr Quirk referred to the penalty imposed in a recent case which had similarities in that the breach required the field to be unloaded and vet checked and that the start of the race was delayed as a result. Likewise, there was little in the way of consequential effects. In this case, the Committee accepted that it was a simple mistake by Mr Smith, quite likely, the result of his unfamiliarity with the new procedures at the start. We understand that measures have since been put in place to ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen in the future.

[14] The Committee was satisfied that Mr Quirk’s submission for a fine of $100 was appropriate, in line with the recent case referred to.

Penalty:

[15] Mr Smith was fined the sum of $100.

R G McKENZIE                       S C CHING
Chairman                             Committee Member 

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: