Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v K O’Connor – Decision of Judicial Committee and Penalty dated 23 July 2014

hearingid: 0e863164b31a94bb0a7ffc42d3cee487

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 18/08/2014

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v K O'Connor - Decision of Judicial Committee and Penalty dated 23 July 2014

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. A6313

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

Informant

AND KERRY O’CONNOR of Darfield, Licensed Person

Respondent

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

Present: Mr J M McLaughlin, the Informant

Miss K O’Connor, the Respondent

Mr N G McIntyre, Registrar

Date of Hearing: 23 July 2014

Date of Decision: 23 July 2014

RESERVED REASONS FOR DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND PENALTY

The Charge

[1] Information No.A6313 alleges that at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington on 1st July 2014, Miss O’Connor committed a breach of Rule 88.1.y in that she “had her hoodie top up when boxing in Race 12”.

[2] The information was served on Miss O’Connor on the day of the meeting. Miss O’Connor signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the Information indicating that she did not admit the breach of the Rule.

The Rule

[3] Rule 88 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:

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

(y) being a Handler of a Greyhound fails to comply with the Board’s dress standards.

The Plea

[4] The above charge and Rule were read to Miss O’Connor and she indicated that she denied the charge.

Evidence of the Informant

[5] Mr McLaughlin said that, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 1st July 2014, Miss O’Connor boxed Runner No.2, ANOTHER PLANE, and it was apparent on the video replay that Miss O’Connor had her white hoodie top up.

[6] Mr McLaughlin produced a copy of the Board’s Dress Policy dated September 2013. It set out a number of requirements, one of which provided “hooded sweatshirts must not be worn”. The Policy went on to state:

The dress standard applies to handlers and catchers. Clubs, handlers or catchers may apply for an exemption for special events or for other genuine reasons on application to the Stewards.

[7] Mr McLaughlin informed the Committee that a breach of the dress policy is usually dealt with by a $50 fine under the Minor Infringements Scheme. However, Miss O’Connor did not admit the breach and, therefore, it was necessary to file an information which is now before this Committee.

[8] Mr McLaughlin showed a video still of Miss O’Connor, boxing dog number 2, and submitted that Miss O’Connor could be seen to be wearing a white hoodie with the hood top up. Miss O’Connor admitted that she was the person shown in the still. She also acknowledged that she was aware of the requirements of the Board’s Dress Policy.

[9] Mr McLaughlin also produced a copy of a letter from the General Manager of GRNZ to the RIU which stated:

. . . the consistency of dress code is one of the strengths of the presentation of greyhound racing to the millions of TV viewers watching our sport here, in Australia, parts of Asia and the UK. The look of the handlers as they lead out the greyhounds is important to the sport and it has taken some time to get a consistency of dress for the handlers and that this is now occurring is due to rigorous policing of the code adopted by GRNZ and their member clubs.

Evidence of the Respondent

[10] Miss O’Connor produced a medical certificate from Dr Victoria Price of Darfield Medical Centre which read:

This is to certify that the patient described above [Kerry O’Connor] is allowed to wear a jacket when deemed necessary to keep warm.

[11] Miss O’Connor then produced a lengthy written statement of her evidence in defence of the charge. It is not appropriate to set out that statement verbatim.

[12] Miss O’Connor’s defence was directed, principally, at the weather prevailing at the time and that she was vey cold as a result. She said:

During the day the weather was sunny but cold. Addington Raceway is known to be a very cold and windy place, especially out in the open space of the greyhound track.

Handlers were wearing white shirts with club regulation vests over top. This was the dress code for the day, which is determined by how many people are cold and want to wear jackets, and how many are happy with just wearing a vest and white shirt.

When out on the track for Race 12, I was very cold and shivering, as the white shirt, jersey and vest was not enough to keep me warm. In Race 12, I was handling runner No.2, ANOTHER PLANE, whilst behind the boxes crouching over my dog, there was a strong wind blowing straight down the back of my vest and down my back. I was very cold at this stage and, as a natural reaction to being cold, reached up and pulled my hood up onto my head, so as to stop the wind from going down my back.

My hood was up for approximately 20 seconds as I boxed my dog, then when I stood up I removed my hood and put it back down. When standing up the wind was still cold, but it was no longer blowing down my neck and back. However I was still very cold.

My reasons for wanting to stay warm at all times are justified by medical reasons. I have had severe back problems since the birth of my son in 2005, having had treatment for years, which is still ongoing. When I am cold my back seizes up and I find it extremely difficult to bend or lift anything. As you can imagine this makes my job at the races almost impossible when I am this cold.

[13] Miss O’Connor produced a letter from each of Licensed Trainer, Marcie Flipp and Licensed Person, Kirsty Taylor, mainly addressing alleged inconsistencies in the dress code and the enforcement of it. This was also raised by Miss O’Connor in her written statement but the Committee has not addressed these issues as they are not relevant to this particular charge.

Reasons for Decision

[14] The facts in this case are very simple. Mr McLaughlin alleged, and it was clearly shown by the video evidence, that Miss O’Connor breached the Dress Policy of Greyhound Racing New Zealand by wearing a hooded sweat shirt, popularly known as a “hoodie”, when boxing ANOTHER PLANE for Race 12 at Addington on 1st July 2014. Miss O’Connor did not deny that she was the person boxing ANOTHER PLANE or that the hood of her sweatshirt was raised over her head.

[15] In defence to the charge, Miss O’Connor pleaded that the weather was fine but cold with a cold wind and “she was very cold and shivering”. The other handlers were wearing only white shirts with the Club’s regulation vest on top, she said. She also acknowledged that she was aware of the Dress Policy as far as hooded sweat shirts were concerned.

[16] Miss O’Connor had obtained a medical certificate retrospectively (see paragraph [10] above).

[17] While the Committee had some sympathy for Miss O’Connor, the appropriate course of action for her to have taken would have been for her to approach the Stewards for consent to depart from the strict requirements of the Dress Policy. We note that the Dress Policy contemplates such a situation when it states that a handler may apply for an exemption “for special events or for other genuine reasons on application to the Stewards”. Miss O’Connor should have made application for such an exemption which would have, no doubt, been given consideration by the Stewards.

[18] It appeared to the Committee that Miss O’Connor was on something of a crusade, alleging inconsistency in the enforcement of the Dress Policy. A good part of her written evidence was directed to this and she also sought leave to play videos of other instances where, in her view, there had been inconsistency. The Committee refused leave on the grounds of relevance.

[19] The charge was found proved.

Penalty Submissions

[20] Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that the offence is one that incurs a fine of $50 under the Minor Infringement Scheme. Miss O’Connor elected not to accept the fine but rather elected to defend the charge. In those circumstances, Mr McLaughlin said, the Stewards were seeking a fine of not less than $100. However, he added, Miss O’Connor does not provide problems on raceday for the Stewards.

[21] Miss O’Connor submitted that a fine of $100 was excessive. She suggested that she should have been given a warning on the day and was “unfairly treated”. She also submitted that she had not breached the Dress Policy previously. She submitted that the breach was not “major” and she was just trying to keep warm.

Penalty Reasons

[22] In determining penalty, the Committee took a starting point of the $50 fine provided by the Minor Infringement Scheme. An uplift of $50 was appropriate for Miss O’Connor not accepting the fine on the day. It is self-evident that the minor infringement fine is based on the offender accepting liability. From that point (of a $100 fine) we were able to allow a discount for mitigating factors which we saw as being, firstly, Miss O’Connor’s previous good record and, secondly, that she believed that she was justified in attempting to keep warm. In other words, she breached the Policy for what, she considered, were genuine reasons. Her defence was not entirely frivolous. For those mitigating factors, we gave Miss O’Connor a discount of $50.

Penalty

[23] Miss O’Connor was fined the sum of $50.

Footnote

[24] 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 the 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.

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: