Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P Taylor – decision dated 10 February 2015

hearingid: 2efcee6cda3c72aab1775dfdcb7c8b77

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/02/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v P Taylor - decision dated 10 February 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)

BETWEEN Michael Austin, Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND Peter Taylor, Licensed Trainer, New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

Defendant

Judicial Committee:

Mr Paul Williams, Chairman - Mr Tangi Utikere, Committee Member

Present were:

Mr Peter Taylor – Licensed Trainer
Mr Michael Austin – Stipendiary Steward

DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Introduction

This matter was heard by way of two teleconferences. The first teleconference was held at 2.00pm on Monday 2 February 2015.

Under an Information laid against him by the Informant on 15 January 2015 Mr Taylor has been charged with a breach of Rule 88.1(q) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing (“the Rules”). Rule 88.1(q) states:-

-Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:-
-commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing.

The Information laid against Mr Taylor alleges that, on 15 January 2015 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting at Cambridge, as the licensed trainer and handler of a greyhound named “Sunday Driver” he struck “Sunday Driver” across the head with his hand on the way to the start. Mr Taylor admitted the breach on the day of the races but did not accept the penalty that was proposed by the Informant Mr Austin. As a result he was told the matter would be referred to the Judicial Control Authority for determination of penalty.

Rule 89.1 of the Rules states:-

Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:-
a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any 1 Offence; and/or
b) Suspension; and/or
c) Disqualification; and/or
d) Warning Off.

Mr Taylor has confirmed that he still admits the breach, that he understands Rule 88.1(q) under which he was charged and the penalties available for breaching that Rule.

Because Mr Taylor has admitted the breach of the Rules the charge is found to be proved.

Mr Taylor and Mr Austin have agreed this Committee should deal with the remaining issue of penalty on the basis of the Summary of Facts provided.

At the time of the offence Mr Taylor was, and still is, a licensed trainer under the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing and President of the Taranaki Greyhound Club. He is the trainer of, currently, 3 greyhounds including “Sunday Trader”.

The Summary of Facts presented by Mr Austin was as follows:-

“On Thursday 15th January 2015 Mr Peter Taylor was in attendance at a meeting held by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge. Mr Taylor was the trainer and handler for the greyhound “Sunday Driver” which was an acceptor in Race 1 on the days programme. On the way to the start at approximately the 457 boxes he struck his dog across the head with his hand this was witnessed by the Starter and at least 4 other handlers.

Mr Taylor was questioned by the Stewards regarding this matter and subsequently charged with breaching Rule 88.1.q of the Rules of Greyhound Racing. Mr Taylor admitted the breach but did not accept the penalty recommended by the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Taylor was advised that the matter would be referred to the Judicial Control Authority for determination of penalty”.

Mr Taylor was asked if he agreed with Summary of Facts. He said he disputed the fact that the Starter and 4 others had witnessed the incident. He claimed he had been told by Mr Austin that the Starter and 2 others had witnessed the incident. He also said he had rung Mr Austin the day after the races to apologise to Mr Austin for his actions and during that conversation Mr Taylor said Mr Austin said that a total of 3 people had seen him strike his dog.

Mr Austin said on the day of the interview he had told Mr Taylor that the Starter and a couple of other people had seen Mr Taylor hit his dog but that subsequent to that interview a couple more people had come forward.

At this point it became clear that a transcript of the raceday interview between Mr Austin and Mr Taylor existed. When asked why this had not been forwarded to the Committee prior to the hearing today Mr Austin said that he had been advised that it wouldn’t be necessary to do so.

Submissions of the Parties

Mr Taylor was asked to describe in his own words what happened on the day. He said he did not strike “Sunday Driver” but rather flicked the dog across the head with an open hand. He said he did so because the behaviour of his dog on the way to the start was not acceptable as it was reacting to having a bitch that was in season close to it on the way to the boxes. He said he had to bring his dog into line and had he not done so there may well have been a dog fight on the track. He said if he had to classify his “offence” on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the lowest rating he would give it a 1. He said he objected to having been told he “struck” his dog but accepted the Information stated he “struck (Sunday Driver) across the head with his hand on the way the start” and that he had signed the Information admitting the breach.

Mr Austin said that 1 witness to the incident described Mr Taylor hitting the dog “quite hard”. Mr Austin confirmed there was no Trackside television coverage of the incident although it is noted that during the initial interview with Mr Taylor he was told it was shown on Trackside but at the time of the interview the film was not available. He also said he told Mr Taylor on the day he was proposing to fine Mr Taylor $250 based on the penalty guidelines written by the NZGRA and issued to all stipendiary stewards working in the greyhound code.

At this point the hearing was adjourned. Mr Austin was asked to forward a copy of the transcript of the raceday interview to the Chairman so it could be circulated to the full Committee and Mr Taylor. There was a brief discussion about obtaining a copy of the penalty guidelines referred to by Mr Austin but the Committee decided they were not necessary in order to determine what the penalty would be in this matter.

Soon after the hearing was adjourned a copy of the transcript of 3 raceday interviews – with Mr Taylor, Ms Wendy Toomath (Head Parade Steward) and Mr Gary Sharp (Starter) was received by the Chairman and circulated to all parties.

The second teleconference was held at 12.30pm on 10 February 2015.

Mr Taylor advised the Committee the transcript of his interview was an accurate record of what was said between him and Mr Austin.

Mr Taylor, in making his submission on penalty, said he believed a warning rather than a financial penalty was sufficient. He reiterated that the only reason he did what he did was to avoid “a nasty incident” occurring in full view of those watching both on course and through Trackside TV.

Mr Austin confirmed that he was still of the view that a fine of $250 was an appropriate penalty. He said maintaining the integrity of the sport and ensuring the welfare of the all dogs was a key function of the Stipendiary Stewards. He said he considered the penalty being sought was the minimum he could ask for given the circumstances of this matter.

Discussion

The transcript of the interviews with Mr Taylor, Ms Toomath and Mr Sharp variously describe the dog “Sunday Driver” being “clipped across the ears”, “hit across the head”, “clipped on the head”, “tapped on the head”, and “smacked across the head – quite a hard smack” as the dog was being paraded. What is clear is that Mr Taylor has struck the head of his dog as he was walking to the boxes for Race 1 – a fact he admitted both during the raceday interview with Mr Austin and in signing the Information admitting the breach. Whilst he thought he was doing the right thing, hitting a dog across the head is not acceptable behaviour of a trainer. It is fortuitous that at the exact time “Sunday Driver” was struck the Trackside cameras were on other dogs and so the incident was not seen across the Trackside network.

Whilst not brought under Rule 88.1(q) the Committee is aware of the case – RIU v M J Flipp (Decision dated 2 September 2014) – where the defendant was charged with “taking action to reprimand an unregistered greyhound at a trials meeting in Christchurch in July 2104”. In this case the dog was kicked by the defendant when she was trying to box the dog prior to the start of a trial race. The breach was admitted and a penalty of a $300 fine was imposed. An extract from this decision states:-

“Welfare of greyhounds is a priority for the Greyhound Racing code and in January 2014 its Governing Body issued a Code of Welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The Code applies to all persons licensed by the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and applies to all greyhounds kept by such persons. The purpose of the Code is expressed in these words:-

Owners and persons in charge of racing greyhounds have a responsibility to understand and meet the welfare needs of their greyhounds. The purpose of this Code is to encourage all those responsible for racing greyhounds to adopt the highest standards of husbandry, care and handling”.

Any physical mistreatment of a greyhound is clearly in breach of this welfare code and also a breach of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. Mr Taylor has admitted the charge of committing an act and engaging in conduct that is detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image control or promotion of Greyhound racing. In addition to the animal welfare aspect of this matter, the Committee needs to have regard as always to the integrity of greyhound racing and the need to protect it. Any form of physical abuse of a greyhound is likely to damage the integrity of greyhound racing and we need to have regard to this in arriving at an appropriate penalty.

Mr Taylor has been a member of the Taranaki Greyhound Racing Club for 40 years and represented the Club at a national level for many years. He currently has 3 dogs in full training. The Committee has taken into account Mr Taylor’s early admittance of the breach and notes he has fully cooperated with the Stewards throughout and also apologised to Mr Austin for his actions the day after the race meeting. The Committee fully understands Mr Taylor when he says he genuinely believes had he not done what he did there would have a problem with his dog possibly mounting another on the way to the start. Whilst that may have been his thinking there were other courses of action he could have taken to restrain his dog rather than hitting it across the head. It is noted this is Mr Taylor’s first breach of the Rule but a penalty must be imposed that will serve to deter him from similar behaviour in the future as well as deter others from physically abusing their animals.

Mr Taylor submitted that the fine proposed by Mr Austin was too severe and a warning was a more appropriate penalty. The Committee does not agree with Mr Taylor and believes the penalty needs to recognise the seriousness of the offence. The Committee does not believe, however, that the mistreatment of “Sunday Driver” whilst being unacceptable is as serious as that described in the “Flipp” case and this will be reflected in the penalty imposed.

Penalty

In terms of Rule 92.11 we find the offence with which Mr Taylor has been charged and admitted duly proved. We believe on this occasion a fine is an appropriate penalty and Mr Taylor is fined $250.

Costs

There will be no order for costs.

DATED at Wellington this tenth day of February 2015.

Paul Williams                        Tangi Utikere 
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: