Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v L Ahern – Penalty Decision dated 1 February 2017 – Chair, Mr T Utikere

hearingid: 3747205246ab22956985e5975c509ec1

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 01/02/2017

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v L Ahern - Penalty Decision dated 1 February 2017 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER OF The New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Informant

AND MS LISA AHERN

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman)

Mrs N Moffatt (Member)

Parties: Mr G Whiterod (for the RIU)

Ms L Ahern (as the Respondent)

Registrar: Mrs C Hutton

Hearing: On the Papers

Date of Decision: 1 February 2017

PENALTY DECISION OF NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Facts

[1] Information A3381 has been filed with the JCA alleging a breach of Rules 64.3 and 64.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Rules of Racing in relation to the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club’s Meeting of 30 December 2016. It alleged that: "L Ahern scratched the following greyhounds without valid reason - BIGTIME MONTY, SKUZI, BIGTIME DAZZLER, ALLEGRO GUN, TIMMA TURTLE."

[2] The Committee issued a Minute (Dated 16 January 2017) advising that it was in receipt of a letter from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Mike Godber, authorising the lodging of the Information against Ms Ahern. The Minute also identified that Ms Ahern had admitted the breach, and that the charge had accordingly been found proved.

[3] The committee has considered this matter on the papers, without objections from either party. The RIU and the Respondent have also both filed Penalty Submissions for the committee's consideration.

[4] Rule 64.3 states: ”If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence.”

[5] Rule 64.4 states: “When more than one Totalisator Meeting is held on the same day, being drawn into a field at one Totalisator Meeting, (whether as a result of competing in qualifying Races or otherwise) shall not constitute a valid reason for withdrawal of the Greyhound from the Race at another Totalisator Meeting. Such Greyhound shall incur a 28 day suspension effective from the day following the Meeting.”

[6] The committee is aware that Ms Ahern had appealed the decision of Stipendiary Stewards to stand her five dogs down for 28 days under the provision of Rule 64.4. Her appeal was unsuccessful. The circumstances that lead to the breach currently before this committee are detailed at paras [8] and [9] of the Tribunal's Decision . Both paragraphs are set out below:

"[8] She identified that on Friday 30th December there were two race meetings; one held at Wanganui and the other at Cambridge. The Wanganui nominations closed on Thursday the 22nd of December at 12 noon, with the fields then drawn at 2pm that day. At that stage, the heats for Cambridge held on the 24th of December had not been run. This then meant that Ms Ahern did not know which of her dogs would qualify for the finals on the 30th of December. She also stated that she was unable to know which dogs would get into these races and the selectors were unable to tell her which dogs were to race at each meeting, due to the fields being closed at two separate times and the draws being done at different times at the different clubs. She identified that Cambridge fields closed at 12 noon on 28 December.

[9] The fields for Wanganui closed nine days before the Meeting; which was prior to the Cambridge heats set down for 24 December. Ms Ahern stated that it was therefore impossible to know which dogs would make the races; so she believed that entering them for a race meeting at Wanganui allowed them to continue racing and also helped the local club with its meeting."

The RIU's Penalty Submissions

[7] For the RIU, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds) Mr Whiterod filed written Penalty Submissions.

[8] His submissions stated that when referring to the Sixth Schedule, Rule 64.3 stated that for a first offence a fine of $150 was imposed. For a second offence he submitted that a fine of $250 could be imposed with a third offence being referred to the JCA. He believed that it was possible that further charges after that could also result in further increases in the level of fine being imposed.

[9] He submitted, that as there were five separate instances of greyhounds being entered outside of the Rules, a fine in the vicinity of $1,200 to $1,500 was appropriate, and would also be a strong deterrent to those within the greyhound code.

The Respondent's Penalty Submissions

[10] Ms Ahern also filed written Penalty Submissions with the Judicial Committee. She believed a number of factors should be taken into consideration and her full written Submissions are set out below:

"1. Loss of income from these five high quality dogs, being group winning dogs, is penalty in itself. When they still need to be trained, trialled and fed to enable them to be ready to race in 28 days.

2. We took advice from an individual on the rules committee of NZGRA which was incorrect information given to us. We assumed since they were on the rules committee that they would know the rules and subsequently, due to this, this has now cost myself and my family time and a loss of income already.

3. I feel this should be looked at as one breach not five, as although there are five separate dogs they were all scratched from one race meeting due to the same reason; that they were all competing in finals in another meeting.

4. I believe that Mr Whiterod's suggestion that a steep fine would deter and send a strong message to others, is unnecessary as there was no financial gain to be made by doing this and as mentioned, afore, myself and my family have already been penalised financially due to dogs being stood down and unable to race.

5. I have concerns that this penalty may be steep in relation to fines that have been given for positive swabs, which to me, are on a completely different level.

6. I have also never been before the JCA on any charge before in 22 years of racing."

[11] She concluded her Submissions by indicating that her main concern was that this matter be fairly judged and that the points that she had raised were taken into consideration; especially in relation to the fact that the dogs had been stood down for 28 days; which was already affecting their income. She also reinforced that she had never been before the JCA previously or penalised by the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.

Reasons for Penalty
[12] The Committee has considered the written Penalty Submissions of the RIU and the Respondent.

[13] Ms Ahern has suggested that the loss of income as a result of the five dogs, which are ‘group winning dogs’, being stood down for 28 days is a penalty in itself. We reject the notion that that should substitute any penalty we may be likely to impose. Ms Ahern should not have breached the rule which led to the mandatory 28 stand down period required to be implemented under the provision of Rule 64.4. The Minor Infringements for this rule indicate that a financial penalty is applied in addition to the stand down period. The ‘high quality’ of the dogs is an irrelevant consideration for us, as the rules apply to all racing greyhounds.

[14] Ms Ahern is a high profile and experienced trainer who has an obligation to understand the rules. Any suggestion that she received advice from NZGRA personnel to indicate that her action of dual nominating was acceptable is based on a false assumption. The obligation to understand the rules as the licensed trainer rests with her.

[15] Her submission that this should be looked at as one breach not five, has merit. She states that although there were five separate dogs, they were all scratched from the one race meeting due to them all competing in finals in another meeting. Mr Whiterod adopts an alternate position, believing that there were five separate instances of greyhounds being entered outside of the rules.

[16] While the ultimate outcome may have been the withdrawal of five dogs, the committee has determined that all five dogs were withdrawn as a result of one action. Ms Ahern has made the same mistake, in breaking the rules, once; but with five separate dogs, rather than making a mistake on five separate occasions, which the committee accepts would then require a significant deterrent factor. This is the approach taken in other racing codes, where for example a trainer may be late in declaring two or three riders at the same time. In that circumstance the trainer has made one action in declaring the riders after the appointed time, albeit there is more than one rider as part of that late declaration.

[17] We must also consider that this breach has had implications for the club at which the dogs were entered, but did not race. The implications of having five dogs withdrawn from a meeting is quite different to having one or two dogs withdrawn.

[18] The committee could not find any guidance from previous decisions as previous breaches of Rule 64.3 have been in relation to incidents that involve a singular dog. This matter has been placed before the JCA for determination, and while Minor Infringement quantums exist for first and second offences of this rule, the committee is not bound by these figures; but rather must adopt a consideration of the context and circumstances of Ms Ahern’s specific breach.

[19] In approaching the question of penalty, there is no linear equation or mathematic formula that can be imposed, but in our view the breach does not warrant a global $150 penalty when we consider the circumstances of Ms Ahern’s offending on this occasion.

[20] As a starting point, we have adopted a fine of $750. In the context of five dogs, this equates to $150 for each dog. This is also at the quantum identified for a first breach under the Minor Infringement Schedule and also recognises that in light of our finding that while this relates to five dogs being withdrawn, it is a result of one action on the part of the respondent.

[21] In mitigation we must apply that Ms Ahern has a very good record and that this matter is being dealt with on an admitted basis. In these circumstances we will afford Ms Ahern a $150 discount. This equates to a 20 percent reduction in penalty.

[22] It is clear that the practice of dual nominating for two meetings on the same day in the hope that a dog may gain entry to one preferential race over another is not only in breach of the rules, but also an unacceptable practice. We are of the view that this penalty will also serve the deterrent purposes that Mr Whiterod has identified in his Penalty Submissions.

Penalty

[23] Ms Ahern is fined the sum of $600.

Costs

[24] Although this is a Non Raceday matter determined on the papers, there has been some cost to the JCA. However, considering the circumstances of this breach no such order for costs is made.

Mr Tangi Utikere

Judicial Committee Chairman

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: