Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Hamilton – decision dated 3 March 2015
ID: JCA10571
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MURRAY HAMILTON, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A4807
COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 3 March 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr B Kitto, Racecourse Investigator, on behalf of his employer, the RIU, has charged Mr M Hamilton, Licensed Trainer (Class A) under r 801(1)(s)(ii) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing, that on 31 December 2014, in a telephone conversation at 1.33 pm, he uttered insulting and abusive words including, “a dumb f...”, “you queer c...”, “you’re an absolute f...wit”, “you’re a f... joke”, “a complete f...wit”, “you f...wit” and “you’re f... incompetent”, to Mr Matthew Corban, an Official employed as the Racing Assistant to the General Manager, NZTR, NZTR Bureau, Wellington.
[2] Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) of the Rules of Racing states:
A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who: either by himself or in conjunction with any other person:
at any time writes or causes to be written, publishes or causes to be published, or utters or causes to be uttered, any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, Committee of a Club or a member or Official of any such body or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, or Registered Medical Practitioner.
[3] Mr Kitto produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 903(2)(d) of the Rules of Racing. The letter was dated 19 January 2015.
[4] A telephone conference was held on 26 February during which Mr Hamilton confirmed his indication on the information that he admitted the breach and wanted the matter to be heard on the papers. The informant did not object to our adopting this course of action, which we accept is appropriate in the circumstances. We have received a summary of facts from Mr Kitto, which Mr Hamilton accepts is accurate. We have also received written submissions from Mr Kitto as to penalty and have had the benefit of a brief oral response to these from Mr Hamilton.
Facts
[5] The facts may be stated briefly.
[6] On 31 December 2014 at 1.33 pm, the respondent rang the New Zealand Racing Bureau and spoke to Mr Corban. We have listened to a recording of the telephone call. The call lasted just under 5 minutes and it commenced with Mr Hamilton questioning why PAW PATROL was second on the ballot for race 2, the AWS LEGAL ALEXANDRA/PGG WRIGHTSON AON INSURANCE MDN at Omakau on 3 January. In particular, he was concerned at the fact that a horse was in the field that had not had a trial. PAW PATROL had had a trial where it was unplaced. PAW PATROL was trained locally and was not getting a start. This, in Mr Hamilton’s view, was unfair. At this time the respondent was using colourful language, but had the matter rested there, it is unlikely that a charge would have been laid.
[7] Mr Corban in response to Mr Hamilton’s inquiry located the NZTR Racing Policy. And reading from cl 9.2.1 of the Policy he told Mr Hamilton that a horse unplaced at a trial goes behind, in order of entry, a horse that has not trialled or raced. Mr Corban assured Mr Hamilton that the field had been selected in accordance with this Policy.
[8] Mr Hamilton was astounded by the stupidity of cl 9.2.1 and, in expressing his thoughts on the matter, he resorted to personal abuse of Mr Corban. Expressions used included: “you’re a dumb f...”; “you queer c...”; “you’re an absolute f...wit”; “you’re a f... joke”; “you’re a complete f...wit”, and “you’re f... incompetent”.
[9] Mr Purcell, the CEO of NZTR, made a formal written complaint to the RIU on 31 December 2014; the same day the conversation took place. He also provided an electronic recording of the call. He stated that the NZTR believed the respondent’s actions were completely inappropriate and constituted a clear breach of the Rules of Racing. He thus asked that the RIU consider charging Mr Hamilton.
Decision
[10] We have no doubt that Mr Hamilton’s admission of the breach is appropriate. We find the charge proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[11] Mr Kitto stated that a breach of the Rules of this nature causes distress and discomfort to the person receiving this type of telephone call. He accepted that the language was used in the private domain as opposed to the public domain, which becomes significantly more serious.
[12] Mr Kitto emphasised that the respondent’s language was to be strongly denounced as it brought racing into disrepute and Mr Corban, who received the call, was only trying to do his job, to the best of his ability, in helping Mr Hamilton. The telephone call, he noted, lasted for some minutes and was not simply an instance of inappropriate language on the spur of the moment. It was a sustained barrage of abuse.
[13] Mr Kitto informed the Committee that somewhat ironically there were scratchings in race 2 and PAW PATROL gained entry to the field and raced. The horse did not finish in a dividend bearing position.
[14] Mr Kitto referred the Committee to a number of cases where there had been similar offending:
RIU v Waddell 20-12-2007 – offensive language to Official – fined $200.
RIU v Peard 26-12-2007 – disrespectful comments towards Officials – fined $350.
RIU v Robinson 02-01-2008 – insulting/offensive language to Official – fined $500.
RIU v Parish 03-01-2011 – disrespect to Officials – fined $350.
RIU v Vile 25-06-2014 – abuse to NZTR employee – fined $350.
RIU v Bothamley 10-10-2014 – offensive language to an Official – fined $300.
[15] Mr Kitto produced Mr Hamilton’s record under this Rule, which was clear. He stated a starting point of a fine of $500 would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
[16] Mr Hamilton submitted that having regard to the cases cited by Mr Kitto a fine of $350 was appropriate. He stated to the Committee that frustration had got the better of him on the day. He apologised unreservedly to Mr Corban and said that he had asked Mr Kitto to convey this to Mr Corban. Mr Kitto assured the Committee that he had done so.
[17] The RIU made no application for costs.
Decision as to penalty
[18] We have had regard to the context of the telephone call. Mr Hamilton genuinely believed that PAW PATROL should have obtained a start before a horse that had not trialled and we accept there is some logic in the view that he holds. Unfortunately, the manner in which he expressed his opinion denigrated Mr Corban, who holds the position of Racing Assistant to the General Manager. By the end of the conversation, Mr Hamilton had resorted to calling Mr Corban names that were far from complimentary. Mr Kitto’s description that it was “a sustained barrage of abuse” is apt.
[19] Whilst the words were used in a private conversation, Mr Corban was simply answering the respondent’s call in his capacity as an employee of NZTR. To abuse a person who is merely performing their job is unacceptable. Mr Hamilton’s conduct was clearly inappropriate and must be denounced.
[20] Mr Corban would not have been responsible for drafting the Racing policy, just its implementation, as we are sure Mr Hamilton understands. For Mr Hamilton to target Mr Corban was thus grossly unfair. The language he used only compounded the situation.
[21] We add, that to his credit, Mr Corban conducted himself with decorum throughout the conversation and did not resort to language in the style used by Mr Hamilton.
[22] Mitigating factors are that Mr Hamilton has admitted the breach at the first opportunity, he is remorseful and has apologised to Mr Corban, and has no previous breaches of this Rule.
[23] Mr Hamilton has been involved in both the Thoroughbred and Harness codes for many years and has held official positions, including that of President of his local Club. This is to his credit, but it should also have alerted him to the fact that to abuse an employee of NZTR in this manner is unacceptable.
[24] The cases demonstrate penalties consistently to be at a level of around $350 for breaches similar to that before us. Having regard to the circumstances of the breach and weighing the mitigating features of this case, we believe a penalty at this level is appropriate. A fine of $350 is imposed.
[25] The RIU does not seek costs. A small contribution to the costs of the JCA pursuant to r 920(3)(d) is appropriate having regard to the fact the matter was heard on the papers.
[26] We order that Mr Hamilton pay the sum of $175 in costs to the JCA.
Dated at Dunedin this 3rd day of March 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/03/2015
Publish Date: 02/03/2015
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 0321536e50f6a37570dab07a8e0e3436
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/03/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M Hamilton - decision dated 3 March 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND MURRAY HAMILTON, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
INFORMATION NO. A4807
COMMITTEE: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 3 March 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr B Kitto, Racecourse Investigator, on behalf of his employer, the RIU, has charged Mr M Hamilton, Licensed Trainer (Class A) under r 801(1)(s)(ii) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing, that on 31 December 2014, in a telephone conversation at 1.33 pm, he uttered insulting and abusive words including, “a dumb f...”, “you queer c...”, “you’re an absolute f...wit”, “you’re a f... joke”, “a complete f...wit”, “you f...wit” and “you’re f... incompetent”, to Mr Matthew Corban, an Official employed as the Racing Assistant to the General Manager, NZTR, NZTR Bureau, Wellington.
[2] Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) of the Rules of Racing states:
A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who: either by himself or in conjunction with any other person:
at any time writes or causes to be written, publishes or causes to be published, or utters or causes to be uttered, any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, Committee of a Club or a member or Official of any such body or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, or Registered Medical Practitioner.
[3] Mr Kitto produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 903(2)(d) of the Rules of Racing. The letter was dated 19 January 2015.
[4] A telephone conference was held on 26 February during which Mr Hamilton confirmed his indication on the information that he admitted the breach and wanted the matter to be heard on the papers. The informant did not object to our adopting this course of action, which we accept is appropriate in the circumstances. We have received a summary of facts from Mr Kitto, which Mr Hamilton accepts is accurate. We have also received written submissions from Mr Kitto as to penalty and have had the benefit of a brief oral response to these from Mr Hamilton.
Facts
[5] The facts may be stated briefly.
[6] On 31 December 2014 at 1.33 pm, the respondent rang the New Zealand Racing Bureau and spoke to Mr Corban. We have listened to a recording of the telephone call. The call lasted just under 5 minutes and it commenced with Mr Hamilton questioning why PAW PATROL was second on the ballot for race 2, the AWS LEGAL ALEXANDRA/PGG WRIGHTSON AON INSURANCE MDN at Omakau on 3 January. In particular, he was concerned at the fact that a horse was in the field that had not had a trial. PAW PATROL had had a trial where it was unplaced. PAW PATROL was trained locally and was not getting a start. This, in Mr Hamilton’s view, was unfair. At this time the respondent was using colourful language, but had the matter rested there, it is unlikely that a charge would have been laid.
[7] Mr Corban in response to Mr Hamilton’s inquiry located the NZTR Racing Policy. And reading from cl 9.2.1 of the Policy he told Mr Hamilton that a horse unplaced at a trial goes behind, in order of entry, a horse that has not trialled or raced. Mr Corban assured Mr Hamilton that the field had been selected in accordance with this Policy.
[8] Mr Hamilton was astounded by the stupidity of cl 9.2.1 and, in expressing his thoughts on the matter, he resorted to personal abuse of Mr Corban. Expressions used included: “you’re a dumb f...”; “you queer c...”; “you’re an absolute f...wit”; “you’re a f... joke”; “you’re a complete f...wit”, and “you’re f... incompetent”.
[9] Mr Purcell, the CEO of NZTR, made a formal written complaint to the RIU on 31 December 2014; the same day the conversation took place. He also provided an electronic recording of the call. He stated that the NZTR believed the respondent’s actions were completely inappropriate and constituted a clear breach of the Rules of Racing. He thus asked that the RIU consider charging Mr Hamilton.
Decision
[10] We have no doubt that Mr Hamilton’s admission of the breach is appropriate. We find the charge proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[11] Mr Kitto stated that a breach of the Rules of this nature causes distress and discomfort to the person receiving this type of telephone call. He accepted that the language was used in the private domain as opposed to the public domain, which becomes significantly more serious.
[12] Mr Kitto emphasised that the respondent’s language was to be strongly denounced as it brought racing into disrepute and Mr Corban, who received the call, was only trying to do his job, to the best of his ability, in helping Mr Hamilton. The telephone call, he noted, lasted for some minutes and was not simply an instance of inappropriate language on the spur of the moment. It was a sustained barrage of abuse.
[13] Mr Kitto informed the Committee that somewhat ironically there were scratchings in race 2 and PAW PATROL gained entry to the field and raced. The horse did not finish in a dividend bearing position.
[14] Mr Kitto referred the Committee to a number of cases where there had been similar offending:
RIU v Waddell 20-12-2007 – offensive language to Official – fined $200.
RIU v Peard 26-12-2007 – disrespectful comments towards Officials – fined $350.
RIU v Robinson 02-01-2008 – insulting/offensive language to Official – fined $500.
RIU v Parish 03-01-2011 – disrespect to Officials – fined $350.
RIU v Vile 25-06-2014 – abuse to NZTR employee – fined $350.
RIU v Bothamley 10-10-2014 – offensive language to an Official – fined $300.
[15] Mr Kitto produced Mr Hamilton’s record under this Rule, which was clear. He stated a starting point of a fine of $500 would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
[16] Mr Hamilton submitted that having regard to the cases cited by Mr Kitto a fine of $350 was appropriate. He stated to the Committee that frustration had got the better of him on the day. He apologised unreservedly to Mr Corban and said that he had asked Mr Kitto to convey this to Mr Corban. Mr Kitto assured the Committee that he had done so.
[17] The RIU made no application for costs.
Decision as to penalty
[18] We have had regard to the context of the telephone call. Mr Hamilton genuinely believed that PAW PATROL should have obtained a start before a horse that had not trialled and we accept there is some logic in the view that he holds. Unfortunately, the manner in which he expressed his opinion denigrated Mr Corban, who holds the position of Racing Assistant to the General Manager. By the end of the conversation, Mr Hamilton had resorted to calling Mr Corban names that were far from complimentary. Mr Kitto’s description that it was “a sustained barrage of abuse” is apt.
[19] Whilst the words were used in a private conversation, Mr Corban was simply answering the respondent’s call in his capacity as an employee of NZTR. To abuse a person who is merely performing their job is unacceptable. Mr Hamilton’s conduct was clearly inappropriate and must be denounced.
[20] Mr Corban would not have been responsible for drafting the Racing policy, just its implementation, as we are sure Mr Hamilton understands. For Mr Hamilton to target Mr Corban was thus grossly unfair. The language he used only compounded the situation.
[21] We add, that to his credit, Mr Corban conducted himself with decorum throughout the conversation and did not resort to language in the style used by Mr Hamilton.
[22] Mitigating factors are that Mr Hamilton has admitted the breach at the first opportunity, he is remorseful and has apologised to Mr Corban, and has no previous breaches of this Rule.
[23] Mr Hamilton has been involved in both the Thoroughbred and Harness codes for many years and has held official positions, including that of President of his local Club. This is to his credit, but it should also have alerted him to the fact that to abuse an employee of NZTR in this manner is unacceptable.
[24] The cases demonstrate penalties consistently to be at a level of around $350 for breaches similar to that before us. Having regard to the circumstances of the breach and weighing the mitigating features of this case, we believe a penalty at this level is appropriate. A fine of $350 is imposed.
[25] The RIU does not seek costs. A small contribution to the costs of the JCA pursuant to r 920(3)(d) is appropriate having regard to the fact the matter was heard on the papers.
[26] We order that Mr Hamilton pay the sum of $175 in costs to the JCA.
Dated at Dunedin this 3rd day of March 2015.
Geoff Hall, 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: