Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PJ Scaife – Decision of Judicial Committe on Costs dated 26 July 2012

hearingid: 1151fa57d1046d6421304ee054d80ae0

informantnumber: 67739

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 26/07/2012

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v PJ Scaife - Decision of Judicial Committe on Costs dated 26 July 2012

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing

IN THE MATTER of Information No.
67339

BETWEEN THOMAS RODNEY CARMICHAEL, Chief Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant

AND PETER JOHN SCAIFE of Foxton, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent

Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie Chairman, Mrs N Moffatt Committee Member
Counsel for Parties: Mr C J Lange for Informant, Ms M-J Thomas for Respondent
Date of Decision: 26 July 2012

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN RELATION TO COSTS

[1] Mr Scaife has admitted a charge of a breach of Rule 1004 (1), (1A) and (3) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. Both parties filed written submissions on penalty and the matter of penalty was dealt with by the Committee on the papers. In the event, Mr Scaife was fined the sum of $2,000.

[2] In its decision dated 22 June 2012, the Committee invited both parties to file written submissions in relation to costs. Written submissions have now been received from both parties.

[3] Rule 1114 (3) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing provide as follows:

(3) On the determination of an information or its withdrawal or dismissal the Judicial Committee may order all or any of the costs and/or expenses of any party to the proceedings of and incidental to the hearing of the information be paid by such person or body as it thinks fit and may fix an amount by way of such costs and expenses…

[4] In support of the Informant’s application for costs, Counsel for the Informant referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of NZTR v McA (2011) (a case in the thoroughbred code) in which it was stated:

The discretion to award costs under the Rule is on its face unqualified but obviously is required to be exercised on a principled basis. In New Zealand bodies such as NZTR and the Judicial Control Authority are funded by allocations from the New Zealand Racing Board, and in the case of NZTR, partly from fees and levies. Those funds are utilised to meet expenses incurred whenever it becomes necessary to take proceedings against those bound by the Rules who breach them. Unless adequate and effective steps are taken to recover those expenses, the utilisation of funds for disciplinary purposes is inevitably at the expense of the Judicial Control Authority’s and NZTR’s other activities in relation to the racing industry. On the face of it there seems no compelling reason in principle why those whose conduct has led to the institution of disciplinary procedures should not, within limits, bear the expense of those procedures if they are ultimately found to have breached the Rules as charged.

[5] The Informant’s costs were summarised as legal costs in the sum of $1,293.75 and the Informant invited the Committee to consider an award at a level of 50% of those costs. Counsel for the Respondent did not take issue either with the amount of the Informant’s legal costs or the percentage claimed.

[6] Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Committee had rejected the Informant’s submission that a term of disqualification should be imposed and the Respondent had thereby been “successful”. On that basis, it was submitted that costs should be awarded in favour of the Respondent. Counsel referred to the recent decision in RIU v M in which the Judicial Committee accepted the Informant’s submission that a disqualification was appropriate in that case and imposed a term of 1 year’s disqualification. Costs were awarded against the Respondent

[7] Counsel for the Respondent distinguished the M case on the basis that, in that case, the Judicial Committee had accepted the Informant’s submission that a period of disqualification was appropriate.

[8] The Committee finds the submission on behalf of the Respondent novel in the extreme but, with respect, finds no merit whatsoever in such submission. The submission is unreservedly rejected.

[9] An award of costs in favour of the Informant is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, the amount claimed by the Informant by way of costs is, the Committee considers, reasonable and was not challenged by Counsel for the Respondent.

[10] The Respondent is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $650.00 to the Informant. The Respondent is further ordered to pay costs in the sum of $350.00 to the Judicial Control Authority.

R G McKENZIE    N M MOFFATT
Chairman           Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

N/A

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 1004(1A), 1004(1) and 1004(3)

Informant: Mr TR Carmichael - Racing Integrity Unit

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent: Mr PJ Scaife - Licensed Public Trainer

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: