Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PE Seque and NJ Simonsen – Decision dated 10 July 2014
ID: JCA13782
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT DUNEDIN
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND PETER ERIC SEQUE
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND NIKO JAMES SIMONSEN
Respondent
Information numbers: A1155 and A1156
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr D Jackson, Member of Committee
Registrar: Mr M Davidson
Appearing: Mr B Kitto, Racecourse Investigator, for the informant
The respondent, Mr P Seque in person
Mr P Bradshaw, assisting Mr P Seque
Also present: Mr S Seque, supporting Mr P Seque
Date of hearing: 11 June 2014
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The informant alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Friday the 4th day of April, 2014, at the Christchurch Greyhound’s Racing Club’s race meeting held at Addington raceway, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing, namely by using obscene and insulting language to another Licence holder, Mrs Bonnie Hinemanu EVANS, by calling her a “f** slut” in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 1.]
[2] The informant also alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Tuesday the 15th day of April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did attempt to interfere with the carrying out of an investigation under the Greyhound New Zealand Rules of Racing by asking Licensed Handler Mr Damian James Ian CONNOR to give false information, namely to say that “Mr Evans threw first”, meaning the first punch, when in fact he had head-butted the Licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark Evans first, in breach of Rule 88.1 h and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 2.]
[3] The informant further alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury park racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark EVANS, in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d of the Greyhound New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 3.]
[4] The informant alleges that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park Racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the Licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark EVANS in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 4.]
[5] The informant further alleges that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th day of April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did assault a member of the Club Committee, namely Mr John Richard GUTHRIE, the President of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club in breach of Rule 88.1 g and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 5.]
[6] The informant further alleges in the alternative that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the Licensed Owner/Trainer Mr John Richard GUTHRIE in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 6.]
[7] The relevant rules state:
88.1 Any person commits an offence if he/she:
(h) prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with or attempts to interfere with the carrying out of any identification, examination, test, autopsy, analysis, inquiry or investigation under these Rules
(q) commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is in any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing:
89.1 Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
[8] Both respondents were served with a copy of the information (numbered A1155 in the case of Mr Seque and A1156 in the case of Mr Simonsen) and attached schedules in accordance with r 1106(1) and were advised by the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the date, time and place of hearing.
[9] Mr Kitto produced written separate authorities pursuant to r 92.2(a) from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, dated 15 May 2014 authorising the lodging of charges against both Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen.
[10] Mr Seque appeared at the hearing and was assisted by Mr Bradshaw. Mr Seque admitted charge 1. He denied the other two charges.
[11] Mr Simonsen did not appear and had not indicated prior to the hearing that he would not do so. He was served personally by Mr Kitto at 10.35 am on 19 April at his residence at 21 Chertsey Kyle Rd, Chertsey. The hearing proceeded in Mr Simonsen’s absence in accordance with r 92.6.
Informant’s case
[12] The informant’s first witness was Mr Stephen Evans, a licensed Public Trainer. He stated he was at Forbury Park on Tuesday 15 April at around 10.15 am kennelling his dogs in preparation for the meeting later that day. Mr Seque was in his van. Mr Evans said he approached Mr Seque, as he was upset at Mr Seque abusing his wife, Bonnie, by calling her a “ f** slut” at a meeting at Addington the previous week. He acknowledged had sought Mr Seque out as he wanted to confront him.
[13] Mr Evans said he called Mr Seque a coward and, if he had issues, Mr Seque should talk to him about them and not his wife. He then walked off and Mr Seque followed him. He agreed there were verbal obscenities exchanged between the two of them at this time. He said he was walking in the direction of the kennel block and was on the grass mound when Mr Seque ran after him and physically confronted him. He said he turned round to face Mr Seque, who then head-butted him on his forehead, just above his nose. Mr Seque was standing in front of him at the time and was quite close to his face. He was certain it was a deliberate action, although he did not believe that Mr Seque arched his head back before moving it forward. He said this was the first physical event and whilst he then threw punches at Mr Seque, he did not do so until after Mr Seque had assaulted him.
[14] Mr Evans said he had been holding the lead to a dog at the time and, after handing the lead to someone nearby, he threw two punches at Mr Seque. Neither of the punches landed on Mr Seque, but at some point the two of them ended up on the ground scuffling. He was not sure how they ended up on the ground. At this time he was attacked from behind with someone punching him to the back of the head and around his shoulders. He thought it was about 6 times. He became aware it was Mr Simonsen. He said Mr Simonsen had joined in of his own volition and he had been unable to defend himself from Mr Simonsen who was attacking him from behind.
[15] Mr Evans stated Mr Guthrie then came on the scene and wrestled Mr Simonsen off him. Mr Guthrie was strong and was holding Mr Simonsen on the ground. Mr Guthrie was acting as a peacemaker but Mr Simonsen still kept on hitting him and was struggling with Mr Guthrie. Mr Evans stated he had a sore neck and bruising to the back of his neck as a result of Mr Simonsen punching him. He did not seek nor require medical attention.
[16] When cross-examined by Mr Bradshaw, Mr Evans said he could not be sure when he went to the ground but he thought it was after the third party joined in. He said prior to that he and Mr Seque had grabbed each other. It was a heated argument and they were both swearing. He acknowledged he had confronted Mr Seque but he had not challenged him to a fight and he was “100 per cent sure” the head-butt was deliberate. He did not suffer bleeding or bruising to the top of his nose or his forehead. When asked if he had called Mr Seque a f**g little thief, he said he did not recall that he did, and, if he had used those words, it was more likely they were directed towards Mr Simonsen.
[17] Mr Evans stated he knew Mr Guthrie but had not realised that it was Mr Guthrie who was intervening until he got up from the ground. He said Mr Guthrie had not identified himself at the time Mr Guthrie pulled Mr Simonsen off him.
[18] Mr Guthrie, the President of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club and a registered owner and trainer under the Rules, gave evidence that at about 10.15 am on 15 April last he was filling his dogs’ water bowls at Forbury Park. He was some 70 metres away from where Mr Seque and Mr Evans were. He said he heard a person whom he thought was Mr Evans, as there was no one else in the vicinity, use the words “You’re nothing but a f**g thief”. Mr Evans moved on to the grassy knoll by the greyhound building and about a minute later he saw Mr Evans being punched by 2 men. He tried to stop it and saw it was Mr Seque who was punching Mr Evans. The second person was Mr Simonsen, he later realised.
[19] Mr Simonsen was also verbally abusing Mr Evans. They were all standing up at this time throwing punches. He said Mr Evans only had one arm to defend himself as he was holding a dog lead. Mr Guthrie said to the respondents that they were bringing greyhound racing into disrepute. He grabbed Mr Simonsen in a headlock to pull him away and he took him to the ground to get him away from the situation. He then used an arm-bar in order to stop Mr Simonsen continuing to punch Mr Evans.
[20] Mr Guthrie was not certain who started the fight, as he did not see the first punches. However, both Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen were punching Mr Evans when Mr Guthrie first saw what was going on. Mr Simonsen was punching Mr Evans to the head below his ear and Mr Simonsen continued to punch Mr Evans even after he had taken to the ground by Mr Guthrie. At this point, Mr Guthrie said, Mr Simonsen was only using one arm as he had hold of the other. He said Mr Simonsen punched him 3 times on the face when they were on the ground and another below the ear. This was how he had received a cut to the side of his head. Mr Guthrie said Mr Simonsen had said to him at the time that he was innocent, he was doing nothing, and was just helping a mate.
[21] Mr Guthrie said he did not recall seeing either Mr Seque or Mr Evans being on the ground, nor did he see Mr Evans throwing punches. Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen were both standing up throwing punches at Mr Evans. He said when he first saw the punches being thrown he would have been about 70 metres away and he had run to the scene. He thought the punching continued for about 15 seconds. He said he was a peacemaker and he was concerned that it was not a good look for the Club, the longer the fight continued. He thought he had said he was the President of the Club when he stood up after having taken Mr Simonsen to the ground. He believed Mr Simonsen would have recognised him but Mr Simonsen probably only knew he was a greyhound trainer and not that he was the President of the Otago Club. He said he had approached Mr Simonsen from the front and had told him and Mr Seque to stop before he took Mr Simonsen to the ground. He said Mr Simonsen had told him to keep out of it. He did not recall Mr Seque saying anything. He said he received injuries to the side of his face as a consequence of Mr Simonsen striking him when he was pulling Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans. He and Mr Simonsen were rolling about on the ground; his head was in the mud and his legs over the gutter at one point.
[22] Mr Kitto next called Mr James Connor, a licensed handler, who stated that at about 10.15 am on 15 April he was at Forbury Park and saw Mr Seque talking to Mr Evans, who was holding a dog on a lead. Mr Seque then went up to Mr Evans and head-butted him. This was the first physical contact between the two of them that he saw. Mr Evans then gave his dog to Mr Rance, who is a friend of Mr Connor. Mr Evans swung some punches at Mr Seque, but missed. Mr Simonsen then came in from behind and started hitting Mr Evans to the back of the head. These punches were connecting and he intervened and pulled Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans. Mr Guthrie then came over and took Mr Simonsen to the ground. Mr Simonsen struggled with Mr Guthrie who suffered injuries to his face. In his statement to Mr Kitto on the day, Mr Connor stated that Mr Simonsen hit Mr Guthrie when Mr Guthrie was on the ground and “sliced his cheek open”. The fighting then stopped. Mr Seque was also punching Mr Evans from the front. He believed Mr Simonsen and Mr Seque each threw 5 or 6 punches at Mr Evans.
[23] Mr Connor said from what he saw Mr Seque had clearly run over towards Mr Evans and when Mr Evans turned to face him, he had head-butted him. The movement of Mr Seque’s head led him to draw the conclusion that Mr Seque’s actions were intentional. He did not see any marks on Mr Evans’s face but his nose was bleeding a little. He thought Mr Evans had been hit on the bridge of his nose.
[24] Mr Connor stated that Mr Simonsen had run over to the altercation between Mr Seque and Mr Evans and had hit Mr Evans from behind. These were punches to the back of the head and they only stopped when Mr Guthrie took Mr Simonsen to the ground. Mr Connor did not hear Mr Guthrie say anything when he ran over. Mr Seque continued to throw punches at Mr Evans but he did not believe these connected. He thought the scuffle had gone on for a while, perhaps some 4 minutes.
[25] Mr Connor said some time after the incident Mr Seque came up to him and said to him to tell the truth, and to say Evans threw the first punch. Mr Connor said he replied, “No. I’m telling the truth.” He said Mr Seque then went very quiet and did not say anything more to him. Mr Seque just stood there and Mr Connor walked away.
[26] Mr Keith Rance, licensed handler, was Mr Kitto’s final witness. Mr Rance said he was at Forbury Park on 15 April at about 10.15 am when he heard “verbals”. Mr Seque came up to Mr Evans, who turned around to face Mr Seque. Mr Seque then head-butted Mr Evans in the face. He never saw what had led up to this. He saw the head-butt clearly and believed it was under Mr Evans’ chin. This was the first physical contact between the two of them.
[27] Mr Rance said Mr Evans handed him the dog he had been holding in order that he could defend himself. There was a tussle and Mr Simonsen came in from behind Mr Evans and threw punches towards Mr Evans’ head. One of these punches connected. Mr Rance did not believe Mr Evans would have seen Mr Simonsen as he would have been in Mr Evans’ blind spot. He said Mr Connor pulled Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans and then Mr Guthrie came in, grabbed Mr Simonsen and was holding him to the ground. Mr Guthrie was trying to calm things down but Mr Simonsen “had a go” at Mr Guthrie. Mr Guthrie was telling Mr Simonsen to calm down but he did not think Mr Guthrie had identified himself. At this time Mr Seque continued to throw wild swings at Mr Evans but he was not sure whether these punches connected. However, he clearly saw Mr Simonsen strike Mr Evans on more than one occasion. Mr Rance described these as “serious punches”. The fight stopped once Mr Guthrie held Mr Simonsen on the ground. He said there were a lot of “verbals”. He could not recall, however, what was said.
Respondent’s (Mr Seque’s) case
[28] Mr Bradshaw spoke on behalf of Mr Seque. He first addressed charge 2. He produced a written submission that stated that Mr Seque had heard rumours that he was being blamed for starting the fight. He said Mr Seque had seen Mr Connor and, knowing Mr Connor had witnessed the altercation, all he had done was to endeavour to find out what Mr Connor had seen. He asked Mr Connor if Mr Connor had seen Mr Evans start the fight by taking the first swing. It was a short and quick conversation. Mr Seque was not persistent after Mr Connor said Mr Seque started the fight and then walked away from Mr Seque. Mr Bradshaw emphasised Mr Seque did not know Mr Connor very well and it was very unlikely he would ask someone he hardly knew to commit perjury for him. He concluded by stating Mr Seque was merely trying to find out what Mr Connor had seen.
[29] Mr Bradshaw produced a signed letter from Mr S Seque, the father of Mr P Seque. It described the background to the abuse of Mrs Bonnie Evans by Mr Seque. There was an infringement notice for a bus that Mr P Seque had been driving on 11 November 2013 that had not been paid. Mr and Mrs Evans had later bought the bus (by buying Mr Stapleton’s share) and were concerned about the unpaid traffic ticket. The letter alleges that Mrs Evans had verbally abused Mr P Seque at the Addington meeting on 11 April [we note the correct date is 4 April] with respect to this and that he had retaliated. The letter does not indicate whether Mr S Seque was present when this occurred or whether he is simply relaying information conveyed to him by Mr P Seque. We attach little weight to this aspect of Mr S Seque’s letter, which is relevant only to mitigation of penalty with respect to charge 1, which Mr P Seque has admitted.
[30] The further point made in the letter that the verbal abuse of Mrs Evans was the catalyst for the confrontation of Mr Seque by Mr Evans at Forbury Park is accepted by Mr Evans and by the RIU.
[31] Mr Bradshaw addressed charge 3 initially also by way of a written submission. He stated that Mr Evans had confronted Mr Seque about his swearing at Mr Evans’ wife at Addington. He said Mr Evans had said, “Have a go at me, you coward.” He said they had each yelled obscenities at each other, as was confirmed by Mr Guthrie hearing Mr Evans say Mr Seque was a f**g thief from a distance of some 60 metres.
[32] Mr Bradshaw alleged that the heads of Mr Evans and Mr Seque had simply been close together and had clashed. Mr Evans naturally thought Mr Seque had started a physical fight and had attacked Mr Seque because he was not letting Mr Seque get away with it. He said what eventuated was a tussle and that Mr Simonsen had over-reacted by coming in and throwing punches. He said Mr Seque was shocked by Mr Simonsen’s over-reaction and the fighting between Mr Evans and him ceased at that point, as was confirmed by Mr Evans being able to walk away once Mr Simonsen was pulled off him.
[33] Mr Bradshaw said Mr Seque denied charge 3 because he did not intentionally head-butt Mr Evans and did not believe any of his punches made contact with Mr Evans.
[34] We note that in his interview with Mr Kitto on 15 April Mr Seque denies calling Mrs Evans a “f**g slut”, although he does admit later in the interview to using an obscene word. It is only in the second interview with Mr Kitto on 22 April that Mr Simonsen admits to using these words. In both interviews Mr Seque states that Mrs Evans was having “a go” at him about the infringement notice for the bus.
[35] Mr Seque also states in the first interview that when he and Mr Evans were face-to-face Mr Evans took a swing at him, which he ducked. He denies ever throwing a swing at Mr Evans. Mr Seque states that Mr Simonsen “just lost it at John Guthrie”. He believed Mr Simonsen was just trying to protect him and he had apologised to Mr Guthrie for Mr Simonsen’s actions. He thought as Mr Guthrie had hold of Mr Simonsen from behind, Mr Simonsen might not have known who it was. He repeated this assertion at the second interview and also acknowledged that Mr Simonsen was punching Mr Evans. He said that although Mr Guthrie was acting as the peacemaker Mr Simonsen might have thought someone was trying to attack him.
[36] In the interview with Mr Kitto on 22 April Mr Seque denies ever head-butting Mr Evans either deliberately or accidentally. He stated there was no contact.
Summing up
[37] With reference to charge 2, Mr Kitto said that Mr Seque had said to Mr Connor to tell the truth and Mr Connor had replied that he would tell the truth and that was that Mr Seque had head-butted Mr Evans. He said this evidence substantiated the charge that had been laid.
[38] Mr Kitto stated as regards charge 3, that there was clear evidence before the Committee that the first physical contact was the head-butt by Mr Seque upon Mr Evans.
[39] Mr Kitto sought and was granted leave to withdraw the charge of assault of a member of the Club committee that had been laid against Mr Simonsen (charge 5). With regard to charge 4 he said the witnesses had clearly stated that Mr Simonsen was attacking Mr Evans from behind and was punching him to the head. Mr Guthrie had only intervened in the capacity of a peacemaker in order to assist Mr Evans who had been blind-sided by Mr Simonsen. The photos to which Mr Guthrie had referred, and which were produced in evidence clearly demonstrated that he had suffered injuries to his face as a result of his struggling with Mr Simonsen. Charge 6, he submitted, was thus also made out.
[40] Mr Bradshaw responded that charge 2 had not been made out. He said it was not clear that Mr Seque had wanted Mr Connor to give false evidence. Mr Seque had simply asked Mr Connor to tell the truth. He did not persist. He said Mr Seque honestly believed that Mr Evans swinging blows at him had started the fight.
[41] With respect to charge 3, he said Mr Seque and Mr Evans were close at the time, after Mr Seque had run up from a distance, and that Mr Seque had not intended to head-butt Mr Evans. It was an accidental head-butt and he pointed to the fact that both Mr Evans and Mr Seque were standing on a grassy slope. It was not disputed that there had been “verbals” and he submitted there had been verbal provocation from Mr Evans. He said that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Mr Evans had suffered a bleeding nose. There was no physical marks resulting from the head-butt and differing views as to which part of Mr Evans’ face had been hit. He also said there was uncertainty as to the duration of the incident. He questioned whether Mr Guthrie had Mr Simonsen in a headlock or an arm-bar.
Written submissions
[42] At the conclusion of the hearing we took time for consideration and returned to the room and indicated that we required written submissions from the parties with regard to charge 2.
[43] We received a brief submission from Mr Kitto in which he stated that the starting point was that words in the Rules must be given their ordinary meaning. An “attempt”, he noted, is defined in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as "try (to do thing)…." Interfere is defined as including to "obstruct…."
[44] The RIU submitted that asking someone to falsely state what had occurred was to try to obstruct the investigation. The fact that the attempt was unsuccessful even from the outset was not material where the person had tried to obstruct the investigation.
[45] Mr Bradshaw replied that on the day of the altercation at Dunedin, Mr Seque had heard that he was being blamed for starting the fight by head butting Mr Evans. He saw Mr Connor and, knowing that he had witnessed the altercation, he approached him and asked, "Are you going to tell the truth and say that Mr Evans threw the first punch?" Mr Connor then replied, "No I am going to tell the truth and say that you head-butted Mr Evans first." This, he submitted was the first time that Mr Seque had heard what Mr Connor intended to say and he merely replied, "No I didn't" and then walked away making no attempt at further conversation.
[46] With reference to the RIU’s submission that the question from Mr Seque was an attempt to ask Mr Connor to falsely state what had occurred, Mr Bradshaw said Mr Seque had no reason to ask Mr Connor to falsify his statement at this point because he did not know what that statement was going to be.
[47] In order to interfere with or obstruct the investigation, Mr Seque, he submitted, would have had to try to persuade Mr Connor to change his story and all parties agreed that this did not occur.
[48] Mr Bradshaw concluded his submission by stating that the RIU had failed to provide any evidence that Mr Seque’s question was an attempt to interfere with or obstruct the investigation and the charge should be withdrawn or at the very least that Mr Seque should be found not guilty.
Decision: Mr Seque
[49] We find that shortly after 10.15 am on 15 April last Mr Evans sought out Mr Seque because he was concerned that Mr Seque had abused his wife, Bonnie, at the Addington meeting 11 days earlier. A heated conversation took place at Mr Evans’ instigation during which both Mr Seque and Mr Evans used foul language. Mr Evans, who was holding a dog on a lead, walked off. Despite Mr Evans’ statement that if he had used the words, “You’re nothing but a f**g thief”, and he did not recall using these words, they would have been directed to Mr Simonsen, we are satisfied by the evidence of Mr Guthrie that these words were used with reference to Mr Seque and not Mr Simonsen. Mr Seque has followed Mr Evans and confronted him on the grassy knoll outside the greyhound building. Further words have been exchanged and during the course of this altercation Mr Seque has head-butted Mr Evans. Mr Connor and Mr Rance witnessed this head-butt. We accept that the grassy knoll is uneven but there is no evidence to the effect that the contact between Mr Seque’s head and the forehead of Mr Evans was accidental. The evidence from Mr Evans and Mr Connor is to the effect that the head-butt contact was intentional and we note that Mr Seque in his statements to Mr Kitto on both 15 or 22 April did not allege that the contact was accidental. Mr Seque has denied in the latter interview that there was any physical contact between him and Mr Evans. In addition, the evidence of Mr Connor, Mr Rance and Mr Evans satisfies us that the first physical contact between Mr Seque and Mr Evans was the head-butt from Mr Seque.
[50] We also find that Mr Seque punched Mr Evans on at least one occasion during the course of the scuffle. Mr Evans has ended up on the ground and we do not attach blame to either Mr Seque or Mr Simonsen for this. The evidence on this issue is to the effect that no one is certain as to how and when Mr Evans came to be on the ground. We find there was a scuffle and three of the participants, Mr Simonsen, Mr Evans and Mr Guthrie have at some point been on the ground.
[51] We are satisfied by the evidence of Mr Connor and Mr Evans that the head-butt on Mr Evans by Mr Seque was intentional and constituted an assault to the person of Mr Evans, and we are further satisfied that at least one of the punches thrown by Mr Seque during the scuffle with Mr Evans landed on Mr Evans.
[52] With respect to charge 3, the approach this Committee adopts is to consider the facts and upon a careful consideration of all the circumstances, to determine whether what has been proved to occur, viz the assault on Mr Evans, is “detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing.”
[53] We believe that this is a straightforward and sensible approach, particularly given the specialist nature of this Committee, as a statutory tribunal with members appointed with expertise in racing. We note this is the approach adopted in McK v B et al (2009) and is in accord with the decision in New Zealand Trotting Conference v Ryan (1990) 1 NZLR 143, 153, where Casey J stated:
As with other professional and sporting bodies, the definition and maintenance of proper standards of conduct is appropriately left to those elected leaders and officials whose experience and standing qualifies them to act as arbitrators of appropriate conduct, and to judge whether any act or omission falls short of it.
[54] The Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing are silent as to standard of proo
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 03/07/2014
Publish Date: 03/07/2014
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: 641c8c14b9df384c69d991997cdfa1b5
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/07/2014
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PE Seque and NJ Simonsen - Decision dated 10 July 2014
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT DUNEDIN
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND PETER ERIC SEQUE
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND NIKO JAMES SIMONSEN
Respondent
Information numbers: A1155 and A1156
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr D Jackson, Member of Committee
Registrar: Mr M Davidson
Appearing: Mr B Kitto, Racecourse Investigator, for the informant
The respondent, Mr P Seque in person
Mr P Bradshaw, assisting Mr P Seque
Also present: Mr S Seque, supporting Mr P Seque
Date of hearing: 11 June 2014
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The informant alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Friday the 4th day of April, 2014, at the Christchurch Greyhound’s Racing Club’s race meeting held at Addington raceway, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing, namely by using obscene and insulting language to another Licence holder, Mrs Bonnie Hinemanu EVANS, by calling her a “f** slut” in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 1.]
[2] The informant also alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Tuesday the 15th day of April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did attempt to interfere with the carrying out of an investigation under the Greyhound New Zealand Rules of Racing by asking Licensed Handler Mr Damian James Ian CONNOR to give false information, namely to say that “Mr Evans threw first”, meaning the first punch, when in fact he had head-butted the Licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark Evans first, in breach of Rule 88.1 h and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 2.]
[3] The informant further alleges that “Peter Eric SEQUE on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury park racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark EVANS, in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d of the Greyhound New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 3.]
[4] The informant alleges that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park Racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the Licensed Trainer Mr Stephen Mark EVANS in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 4.]
[5] The informant further alleges that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th day of April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting, held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did assault a member of the Club Committee, namely Mr John Richard GUTHRIE, the President of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club in breach of Rule 88.1 g and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 5.]
[6] The informant further alleges in the alternative that “Niko James SIMONSEN on Tuesday the 15th April, 2014, at the Otago Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting held at the Forbury Park racecourse, did commit an act which is detrimental to the interest or image of Greyhound Racing in that he assaulted the Licensed Owner/Trainer Mr John Richard GUTHRIE in breach of Rule 88.1 q and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with Rule 89.1 a.b.c.d. of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.” [Hereinafter referred to as charge 6.]
[7] The relevant rules state:
88.1 Any person commits an offence if he/she:
(h) prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with or attempts to interfere with the carrying out of any identification, examination, test, autopsy, analysis, inquiry or investigation under these Rules
(q) commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is in any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing:
89.1 Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
[8] Both respondents were served with a copy of the information (numbered A1155 in the case of Mr Seque and A1156 in the case of Mr Simonsen) and attached schedules in accordance with r 1106(1) and were advised by the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the date, time and place of hearing.
[9] Mr Kitto produced written separate authorities pursuant to r 92.2(a) from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, dated 15 May 2014 authorising the lodging of charges against both Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen.
[10] Mr Seque appeared at the hearing and was assisted by Mr Bradshaw. Mr Seque admitted charge 1. He denied the other two charges.
[11] Mr Simonsen did not appear and had not indicated prior to the hearing that he would not do so. He was served personally by Mr Kitto at 10.35 am on 19 April at his residence at 21 Chertsey Kyle Rd, Chertsey. The hearing proceeded in Mr Simonsen’s absence in accordance with r 92.6.
Informant’s case
[12] The informant’s first witness was Mr Stephen Evans, a licensed Public Trainer. He stated he was at Forbury Park on Tuesday 15 April at around 10.15 am kennelling his dogs in preparation for the meeting later that day. Mr Seque was in his van. Mr Evans said he approached Mr Seque, as he was upset at Mr Seque abusing his wife, Bonnie, by calling her a “ f** slut” at a meeting at Addington the previous week. He acknowledged had sought Mr Seque out as he wanted to confront him.
[13] Mr Evans said he called Mr Seque a coward and, if he had issues, Mr Seque should talk to him about them and not his wife. He then walked off and Mr Seque followed him. He agreed there were verbal obscenities exchanged between the two of them at this time. He said he was walking in the direction of the kennel block and was on the grass mound when Mr Seque ran after him and physically confronted him. He said he turned round to face Mr Seque, who then head-butted him on his forehead, just above his nose. Mr Seque was standing in front of him at the time and was quite close to his face. He was certain it was a deliberate action, although he did not believe that Mr Seque arched his head back before moving it forward. He said this was the first physical event and whilst he then threw punches at Mr Seque, he did not do so until after Mr Seque had assaulted him.
[14] Mr Evans said he had been holding the lead to a dog at the time and, after handing the lead to someone nearby, he threw two punches at Mr Seque. Neither of the punches landed on Mr Seque, but at some point the two of them ended up on the ground scuffling. He was not sure how they ended up on the ground. At this time he was attacked from behind with someone punching him to the back of the head and around his shoulders. He thought it was about 6 times. He became aware it was Mr Simonsen. He said Mr Simonsen had joined in of his own volition and he had been unable to defend himself from Mr Simonsen who was attacking him from behind.
[15] Mr Evans stated Mr Guthrie then came on the scene and wrestled Mr Simonsen off him. Mr Guthrie was strong and was holding Mr Simonsen on the ground. Mr Guthrie was acting as a peacemaker but Mr Simonsen still kept on hitting him and was struggling with Mr Guthrie. Mr Evans stated he had a sore neck and bruising to the back of his neck as a result of Mr Simonsen punching him. He did not seek nor require medical attention.
[16] When cross-examined by Mr Bradshaw, Mr Evans said he could not be sure when he went to the ground but he thought it was after the third party joined in. He said prior to that he and Mr Seque had grabbed each other. It was a heated argument and they were both swearing. He acknowledged he had confronted Mr Seque but he had not challenged him to a fight and he was “100 per cent sure” the head-butt was deliberate. He did not suffer bleeding or bruising to the top of his nose or his forehead. When asked if he had called Mr Seque a f**g little thief, he said he did not recall that he did, and, if he had used those words, it was more likely they were directed towards Mr Simonsen.
[17] Mr Evans stated he knew Mr Guthrie but had not realised that it was Mr Guthrie who was intervening until he got up from the ground. He said Mr Guthrie had not identified himself at the time Mr Guthrie pulled Mr Simonsen off him.
[18] Mr Guthrie, the President of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club and a registered owner and trainer under the Rules, gave evidence that at about 10.15 am on 15 April last he was filling his dogs’ water bowls at Forbury Park. He was some 70 metres away from where Mr Seque and Mr Evans were. He said he heard a person whom he thought was Mr Evans, as there was no one else in the vicinity, use the words “You’re nothing but a f**g thief”. Mr Evans moved on to the grassy knoll by the greyhound building and about a minute later he saw Mr Evans being punched by 2 men. He tried to stop it and saw it was Mr Seque who was punching Mr Evans. The second person was Mr Simonsen, he later realised.
[19] Mr Simonsen was also verbally abusing Mr Evans. They were all standing up at this time throwing punches. He said Mr Evans only had one arm to defend himself as he was holding a dog lead. Mr Guthrie said to the respondents that they were bringing greyhound racing into disrepute. He grabbed Mr Simonsen in a headlock to pull him away and he took him to the ground to get him away from the situation. He then used an arm-bar in order to stop Mr Simonsen continuing to punch Mr Evans.
[20] Mr Guthrie was not certain who started the fight, as he did not see the first punches. However, both Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen were punching Mr Evans when Mr Guthrie first saw what was going on. Mr Simonsen was punching Mr Evans to the head below his ear and Mr Simonsen continued to punch Mr Evans even after he had taken to the ground by Mr Guthrie. At this point, Mr Guthrie said, Mr Simonsen was only using one arm as he had hold of the other. He said Mr Simonsen punched him 3 times on the face when they were on the ground and another below the ear. This was how he had received a cut to the side of his head. Mr Guthrie said Mr Simonsen had said to him at the time that he was innocent, he was doing nothing, and was just helping a mate.
[21] Mr Guthrie said he did not recall seeing either Mr Seque or Mr Evans being on the ground, nor did he see Mr Evans throwing punches. Mr Seque and Mr Simonsen were both standing up throwing punches at Mr Evans. He said when he first saw the punches being thrown he would have been about 70 metres away and he had run to the scene. He thought the punching continued for about 15 seconds. He said he was a peacemaker and he was concerned that it was not a good look for the Club, the longer the fight continued. He thought he had said he was the President of the Club when he stood up after having taken Mr Simonsen to the ground. He believed Mr Simonsen would have recognised him but Mr Simonsen probably only knew he was a greyhound trainer and not that he was the President of the Otago Club. He said he had approached Mr Simonsen from the front and had told him and Mr Seque to stop before he took Mr Simonsen to the ground. He said Mr Simonsen had told him to keep out of it. He did not recall Mr Seque saying anything. He said he received injuries to the side of his face as a consequence of Mr Simonsen striking him when he was pulling Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans. He and Mr Simonsen were rolling about on the ground; his head was in the mud and his legs over the gutter at one point.
[22] Mr Kitto next called Mr James Connor, a licensed handler, who stated that at about 10.15 am on 15 April he was at Forbury Park and saw Mr Seque talking to Mr Evans, who was holding a dog on a lead. Mr Seque then went up to Mr Evans and head-butted him. This was the first physical contact between the two of them that he saw. Mr Evans then gave his dog to Mr Rance, who is a friend of Mr Connor. Mr Evans swung some punches at Mr Seque, but missed. Mr Simonsen then came in from behind and started hitting Mr Evans to the back of the head. These punches were connecting and he intervened and pulled Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans. Mr Guthrie then came over and took Mr Simonsen to the ground. Mr Simonsen struggled with Mr Guthrie who suffered injuries to his face. In his statement to Mr Kitto on the day, Mr Connor stated that Mr Simonsen hit Mr Guthrie when Mr Guthrie was on the ground and “sliced his cheek open”. The fighting then stopped. Mr Seque was also punching Mr Evans from the front. He believed Mr Simonsen and Mr Seque each threw 5 or 6 punches at Mr Evans.
[23] Mr Connor said from what he saw Mr Seque had clearly run over towards Mr Evans and when Mr Evans turned to face him, he had head-butted him. The movement of Mr Seque’s head led him to draw the conclusion that Mr Seque’s actions were intentional. He did not see any marks on Mr Evans’s face but his nose was bleeding a little. He thought Mr Evans had been hit on the bridge of his nose.
[24] Mr Connor stated that Mr Simonsen had run over to the altercation between Mr Seque and Mr Evans and had hit Mr Evans from behind. These were punches to the back of the head and they only stopped when Mr Guthrie took Mr Simonsen to the ground. Mr Connor did not hear Mr Guthrie say anything when he ran over. Mr Seque continued to throw punches at Mr Evans but he did not believe these connected. He thought the scuffle had gone on for a while, perhaps some 4 minutes.
[25] Mr Connor said some time after the incident Mr Seque came up to him and said to him to tell the truth, and to say Evans threw the first punch. Mr Connor said he replied, “No. I’m telling the truth.” He said Mr Seque then went very quiet and did not say anything more to him. Mr Seque just stood there and Mr Connor walked away.
[26] Mr Keith Rance, licensed handler, was Mr Kitto’s final witness. Mr Rance said he was at Forbury Park on 15 April at about 10.15 am when he heard “verbals”. Mr Seque came up to Mr Evans, who turned around to face Mr Seque. Mr Seque then head-butted Mr Evans in the face. He never saw what had led up to this. He saw the head-butt clearly and believed it was under Mr Evans’ chin. This was the first physical contact between the two of them.
[27] Mr Rance said Mr Evans handed him the dog he had been holding in order that he could defend himself. There was a tussle and Mr Simonsen came in from behind Mr Evans and threw punches towards Mr Evans’ head. One of these punches connected. Mr Rance did not believe Mr Evans would have seen Mr Simonsen as he would have been in Mr Evans’ blind spot. He said Mr Connor pulled Mr Simonsen off Mr Evans and then Mr Guthrie came in, grabbed Mr Simonsen and was holding him to the ground. Mr Guthrie was trying to calm things down but Mr Simonsen “had a go” at Mr Guthrie. Mr Guthrie was telling Mr Simonsen to calm down but he did not think Mr Guthrie had identified himself. At this time Mr Seque continued to throw wild swings at Mr Evans but he was not sure whether these punches connected. However, he clearly saw Mr Simonsen strike Mr Evans on more than one occasion. Mr Rance described these as “serious punches”. The fight stopped once Mr Guthrie held Mr Simonsen on the ground. He said there were a lot of “verbals”. He could not recall, however, what was said.
Respondent’s (Mr Seque’s) case
[28] Mr Bradshaw spoke on behalf of Mr Seque. He first addressed charge 2. He produced a written submission that stated that Mr Seque had heard rumours that he was being blamed for starting the fight. He said Mr Seque had seen Mr Connor and, knowing Mr Connor had witnessed the altercation, all he had done was to endeavour to find out what Mr Connor had seen. He asked Mr Connor if Mr Connor had seen Mr Evans start the fight by taking the first swing. It was a short and quick conversation. Mr Seque was not persistent after Mr Connor said Mr Seque started the fight and then walked away from Mr Seque. Mr Bradshaw emphasised Mr Seque did not know Mr Connor very well and it was very unlikely he would ask someone he hardly knew to commit perjury for him. He concluded by stating Mr Seque was merely trying to find out what Mr Connor had seen.
[29] Mr Bradshaw produced a signed letter from Mr S Seque, the father of Mr P Seque. It described the background to the abuse of Mrs Bonnie Evans by Mr Seque. There was an infringement notice for a bus that Mr P Seque had been driving on 11 November 2013 that had not been paid. Mr and Mrs Evans had later bought the bus (by buying Mr Stapleton’s share) and were concerned about the unpaid traffic ticket. The letter alleges that Mrs Evans had verbally abused Mr P Seque at the Addington meeting on 11 April [we note the correct date is 4 April] with respect to this and that he had retaliated. The letter does not indicate whether Mr S Seque was present when this occurred or whether he is simply relaying information conveyed to him by Mr P Seque. We attach little weight to this aspect of Mr S Seque’s letter, which is relevant only to mitigation of penalty with respect to charge 1, which Mr P Seque has admitted.
[30] The further point made in the letter that the verbal abuse of Mrs Evans was the catalyst for the confrontation of Mr Seque by Mr Evans at Forbury Park is accepted by Mr Evans and by the RIU.
[31] Mr Bradshaw addressed charge 3 initially also by way of a written submission. He stated that Mr Evans had confronted Mr Seque about his swearing at Mr Evans’ wife at Addington. He said Mr Evans had said, “Have a go at me, you coward.” He said they had each yelled obscenities at each other, as was confirmed by Mr Guthrie hearing Mr Evans say Mr Seque was a f**g thief from a distance of some 60 metres.
[32] Mr Bradshaw alleged that the heads of Mr Evans and Mr Seque had simply been close together and had clashed. Mr Evans naturally thought Mr Seque had started a physical fight and had attacked Mr Seque because he was not letting Mr Seque get away with it. He said what eventuated was a tussle and that Mr Simonsen had over-reacted by coming in and throwing punches. He said Mr Seque was shocked by Mr Simonsen’s over-reaction and the fighting between Mr Evans and him ceased at that point, as was confirmed by Mr Evans being able to walk away once Mr Simonsen was pulled off him.
[33] Mr Bradshaw said Mr Seque denied charge 3 because he did not intentionally head-butt Mr Evans and did not believe any of his punches made contact with Mr Evans.
[34] We note that in his interview with Mr Kitto on 15 April Mr Seque denies calling Mrs Evans a “f**g slut”, although he does admit later in the interview to using an obscene word. It is only in the second interview with Mr Kitto on 22 April that Mr Simonsen admits to using these words. In both interviews Mr Seque states that Mrs Evans was having “a go” at him about the infringement notice for the bus.
[35] Mr Seque also states in the first interview that when he and Mr Evans were face-to-face Mr Evans took a swing at him, which he ducked. He denies ever throwing a swing at Mr Evans. Mr Seque states that Mr Simonsen “just lost it at John Guthrie”. He believed Mr Simonsen was just trying to protect him and he had apologised to Mr Guthrie for Mr Simonsen’s actions. He thought as Mr Guthrie had hold of Mr Simonsen from behind, Mr Simonsen might not have known who it was. He repeated this assertion at the second interview and also acknowledged that Mr Simonsen was punching Mr Evans. He said that although Mr Guthrie was acting as the peacemaker Mr Simonsen might have thought someone was trying to attack him.
[36] In the interview with Mr Kitto on 22 April Mr Seque denies ever head-butting Mr Evans either deliberately or accidentally. He stated there was no contact.
Summing up
[37] With reference to charge 2, Mr Kitto said that Mr Seque had said to Mr Connor to tell the truth and Mr Connor had replied that he would tell the truth and that was that Mr Seque had head-butted Mr Evans. He said this evidence substantiated the charge that had been laid.
[38] Mr Kitto stated as regards charge 3, that there was clear evidence before the Committee that the first physical contact was the head-butt by Mr Seque upon Mr Evans.
[39] Mr Kitto sought and was granted leave to withdraw the charge of assault of a member of the Club committee that had been laid against Mr Simonsen (charge 5). With regard to charge 4 he said the witnesses had clearly stated that Mr Simonsen was attacking Mr Evans from behind and was punching him to the head. Mr Guthrie had only intervened in the capacity of a peacemaker in order to assist Mr Evans who had been blind-sided by Mr Simonsen. The photos to which Mr Guthrie had referred, and which were produced in evidence clearly demonstrated that he had suffered injuries to his face as a result of his struggling with Mr Simonsen. Charge 6, he submitted, was thus also made out.
[40] Mr Bradshaw responded that charge 2 had not been made out. He said it was not clear that Mr Seque had wanted Mr Connor to give false evidence. Mr Seque had simply asked Mr Connor to tell the truth. He did not persist. He said Mr Seque honestly believed that Mr Evans swinging blows at him had started the fight.
[41] With respect to charge 3, he said Mr Seque and Mr Evans were close at the time, after Mr Seque had run up from a distance, and that Mr Seque had not intended to head-butt Mr Evans. It was an accidental head-butt and he pointed to the fact that both Mr Evans and Mr Seque were standing on a grassy slope. It was not disputed that there had been “verbals” and he submitted there had been verbal provocation from Mr Evans. He said that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Mr Evans had suffered a bleeding nose. There was no physical marks resulting from the head-butt and differing views as to which part of Mr Evans’ face had been hit. He also said there was uncertainty as to the duration of the incident. He questioned whether Mr Guthrie had Mr Simonsen in a headlock or an arm-bar.
Written submissions
[42] At the conclusion of the hearing we took time for consideration and returned to the room and indicated that we required written submissions from the parties with regard to charge 2.
[43] We received a brief submission from Mr Kitto in which he stated that the starting point was that words in the Rules must be given their ordinary meaning. An “attempt”, he noted, is defined in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as "try (to do thing)…." Interfere is defined as including to "obstruct…."
[44] The RIU submitted that asking someone to falsely state what had occurred was to try to obstruct the investigation. The fact that the attempt was unsuccessful even from the outset was not material where the person had tried to obstruct the investigation.
[45] Mr Bradshaw replied that on the day of the altercation at Dunedin, Mr Seque had heard that he was being blamed for starting the fight by head butting Mr Evans. He saw Mr Connor and, knowing that he had witnessed the altercation, he approached him and asked, "Are you going to tell the truth and say that Mr Evans threw the first punch?" Mr Connor then replied, "No I am going to tell the truth and say that you head-butted Mr Evans first." This, he submitted was the first time that Mr Seque had heard what Mr Connor intended to say and he merely replied, "No I didn't" and then walked away making no attempt at further conversation.
[46] With reference to the RIU’s submission that the question from Mr Seque was an attempt to ask Mr Connor to falsely state what had occurred, Mr Bradshaw said Mr Seque had no reason to ask Mr Connor to falsify his statement at this point because he did not know what that statement was going to be.
[47] In order to interfere with or obstruct the investigation, Mr Seque, he submitted, would have had to try to persuade Mr Connor to change his story and all parties agreed that this did not occur.
[48] Mr Bradshaw concluded his submission by stating that the RIU had failed to provide any evidence that Mr Seque’s question was an attempt to interfere with or obstruct the investigation and the charge should be withdrawn or at the very least that Mr Seque should be found not guilty.
Decision: Mr Seque
[49] We find that shortly after 10.15 am on 15 April last Mr Evans sought out Mr Seque because he was concerned that Mr Seque had abused his wife, Bonnie, at the Addington meeting 11 days earlier. A heated conversation took place at Mr Evans’ instigation during which both Mr Seque and Mr Evans used foul language. Mr Evans, who was holding a dog on a lead, walked off. Despite Mr Evans’ statement that if he had used the words, “You’re nothing but a f**g thief”, and he did not recall using these words, they would have been directed to Mr Simonsen, we are satisfied by the evidence of Mr Guthrie that these words were used with reference to Mr Seque and not Mr Simonsen. Mr Seque has followed Mr Evans and confronted him on the grassy knoll outside the greyhound building. Further words have been exchanged and during the course of this altercation Mr Seque has head-butted Mr Evans. Mr Connor and Mr Rance witnessed this head-butt. We accept that the grassy knoll is uneven but there is no evidence to the effect that the contact between Mr Seque’s head and the forehead of Mr Evans was accidental. The evidence from Mr Evans and Mr Connor is to the effect that the head-butt contact was intentional and we note that Mr Seque in his statements to Mr Kitto on both 15 or 22 April did not allege that the contact was accidental. Mr Seque has denied in the latter interview that there was any physical contact between him and Mr Evans. In addition, the evidence of Mr Connor, Mr Rance and Mr Evans satisfies us that the first physical contact between Mr Seque and Mr Evans was the head-butt from Mr Seque.
[50] We also find that Mr Seque punched Mr Evans on at least one occasion during the course of the scuffle. Mr Evans has ended up on the ground and we do not attach blame to either Mr Seque or Mr Simonsen for this. The evidence on this issue is to the effect that no one is certain as to how and when Mr Evans came to be on the ground. We find there was a scuffle and three of the participants, Mr Simonsen, Mr Evans and Mr Guthrie have at some point been on the ground.
[51] We are satisfied by the evidence of Mr Connor and Mr Evans that the head-butt on Mr Evans by Mr Seque was intentional and constituted an assault to the person of Mr Evans, and we are further satisfied that at least one of the punches thrown by Mr Seque during the scuffle with Mr Evans landed on Mr Evans.
[52] With respect to charge 3, the approach this Committee adopts is to consider the facts and upon a careful consideration of all the circumstances, to determine whether what has been proved to occur, viz the assault on Mr Evans, is “detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound racing.”
[53] We believe that this is a straightforward and sensible approach, particularly given the specialist nature of this Committee, as a statutory tribunal with members appointed with expertise in racing. We note this is the approach adopted in McK v B et al (2009) and is in accord with the decision in New Zealand Trotting Conference v Ryan (1990) 1 NZLR 143, 153, where Casey J stated:
As with other professional and sporting bodies, the definition and maintenance of proper standards of conduct is appropriately left to those elected leaders and officials whose experience and standing qualifies them to act as arbitrators of appropriate conduct, and to judge whether any act or omission falls short of it.
[54] The Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing are silent as to standard of proo
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: