Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v TR Barron 14 October 2012 – Decision dated 16 October 2012
ID: JCA16062
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND TONY RONALD BARRON of Invercargill, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr N Skelt, Committe Member
Appearing: Mr C Allison for the informant, Mr Barron in person
Hearing: 14 October 2012
Oral decision: 14 October 2012
Written decision: 16 October 2012
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Barron admitted a breach of r 411(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing in that on Wednesday 29 August 2012, at a trials race meeting held in Wyndham, he brought CHRISTY BREANNA to the racecourse for the purpose of racing instead of RED PATCHES, which had been accepted for Race 4, a Qualifying Mobile Pace.
[2] The respondent is currently licenced as a Public Trainer and Graduation Horseman under the Rules of Harness Racing. He has been licensed with HRNZ since 1987.
[3] Rule 411(2) provides:
Where a horse has, or is deemed to have been accepted for a race at a particular racecourse no other horse shall be brought to the racecourse for the purpose of racing there as the first-mentioned horse.
Facts:
[4] Mr Barron correctly entered a three year old filly named RED PATCHES for a “Qualifying Mobile Pace” conducted by the Southland Owners Trainers and Breeders Association to be held at Young Quinn Raceway Wyndham on 29 August 2012.
[5] The correct brand for RED PATCHES is 09Z 6108. Prior to the commencement of the trials Mr Barron presented a horse he believed to be RED PATCHES to be inspected by the Stipendiary Steward to confirm its identity. The brand on the horse presented was 09Z 7609.
[6] The brand on the horse presented did not match the brands on the registration papers or what was recorded on the HRNZ database for RED PATCHES. It was established that the identity of the horse presented to be inspected for the purpose of racing was in fact another three year old filly trained by Mr Barron named CHRISTY BREANNA. RED PATCHES was subsequently scratched prior to the commencement of the trials and did not race.
[7] When interviewed by RIU staff, Mr Barron advised both RED PATCHES and CHRISTY BREANNA had arrived at his stables some two years ago. He stated he had mixed up the horses upon their arrival and he had been preparing the two horses to race under one another’s names. Both horses were similar in physical appearance and have similar markings.
[8] Mr Barron admitted he had never checked the brands on the horses. When he had forwarded a trainer notification on 27 August 2012 advising HRNZ he was training RED PATCHES he had taken the brand off the horse’s registration papers instead of physically checking the brand from the horse.
[9] Mr Barron also confirmed CHRISTY BREANNA had started at workouts conducted by the Invercargill Harness Racing Club on 18 August 2012 instead of RED PATCHES, where it finished in second placing. This result has now been corrected by HRNZ to show CHRISTY BREANNA was the horse that finished second.
Submissions as to penalty:
[10] Mr Allison emphasised that the meeting at which RED PATCHES was presented to race was a trial not a raceday. RED PATCHES was able to be scratched prior to the trial and did not race.
[11] Mr Allison stated there was no suggestion that it was an intentional act by Mr Barron to deceive any party.
[12] Mr Allison said that when spoken to by RIU staff Mr Barron admitted his fault immediately, was very co-operative throughout the investigation, and conducted himself in a professional manner. Mr Barron took full responsibility for his actions. However, Mr Allison said the failure to check the brand on the horse was a basic error, which should not have occurred.
[13] The informant referred to relevant cases, namely NZTR v McK (2011) ($500 fine plus costs of $350), NZTR v W (2007) ($400 fine and no costs), and NZTR v H (2004) ($600 fine plus costs of $250). There were also two Harness Racing cases where fines of $250 were imposed: M (2004) and C (2006). These cases were both dealt with by HRNZ without an information being laid with the JCA.
[14] Mr Allison produced Mr Barron’s record, which he described as excellent. It recorded no previous breaches of this rule.
[15] The RIU submitted that a fine of $400 was appropriate and did not seek costs in relation to the hearing.
[16] Mr Barron confirmed the summary of facts as outlined by the informant and said he had made “a schoolboy error”. He did not disagree with the informant’s submission as to penalty.
Decision:
[17] We need to impose a penalty that holds the respondent accountable and which deters other licenceholders from identifying a horse solely from the papers without checking the brand on the horse itself.
[18] Mr Barron has started approximately 450 horses in a training partnership and around a further 1900 horses on his own account. He is thus an experienced trainer and is aware of his obligations under the Rules. We accept that he has made a genuine mistake and believe Mr Barron’s description of his actions as being “a school-boy error” to be apt.
[19] The respondent is fortunate that the breach was discovered at a trials meeting and not on raceday, otherwise a substantially higher penalty would have been considered. That said, the horse did attend a workout on one occasion before the error was discovered and this has necessitated that the official result be corrected.
[20] We accept Mr Barron is contrite and we are impressed with the professionalism he has shown during this hearing.
[21] The respondent’s record has been correctly described by the informant as “excellent” and that this is Mr Barron’s first breach of any significance of any rule in his 25 years in the industry is a significant mitigating factor.
Penalty:
[22] Weighing these matters, and taking guidance from the comparator cases identified by the informant, we impose a fine of $400.
[23] The matter was heard on a raceday and the informant does not seek costs. We make no order as to costs.
Prof G Hall Mr N Skelt
Chairman Committee Member
16 October 2012
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 04/10/2012
Publish Date: 04/10/2012
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: b655720292a70b77506ea84b1dcb2d14
informantnumber: A1315
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 04/10/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v TR Barron 14 October 2012 - Decision dated 16 October 2012
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
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND TONY RONALD BARRON of Invercargill, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr N Skelt, Committe Member
Appearing: Mr C Allison for the informant, Mr Barron in person
Hearing: 14 October 2012
Oral decision: 14 October 2012
Written decision: 16 October 2012
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Barron admitted a breach of r 411(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing in that on Wednesday 29 August 2012, at a trials race meeting held in Wyndham, he brought CHRISTY BREANNA to the racecourse for the purpose of racing instead of RED PATCHES, which had been accepted for Race 4, a Qualifying Mobile Pace.
[2] The respondent is currently licenced as a Public Trainer and Graduation Horseman under the Rules of Harness Racing. He has been licensed with HRNZ since 1987.
[3] Rule 411(2) provides:
Where a horse has, or is deemed to have been accepted for a race at a particular racecourse no other horse shall be brought to the racecourse for the purpose of racing there as the first-mentioned horse.
Facts:
[4] Mr Barron correctly entered a three year old filly named RED PATCHES for a “Qualifying Mobile Pace” conducted by the Southland Owners Trainers and Breeders Association to be held at Young Quinn Raceway Wyndham on 29 August 2012.
[5] The correct brand for RED PATCHES is 09Z 6108. Prior to the commencement of the trials Mr Barron presented a horse he believed to be RED PATCHES to be inspected by the Stipendiary Steward to confirm its identity. The brand on the horse presented was 09Z 7609.
[6] The brand on the horse presented did not match the brands on the registration papers or what was recorded on the HRNZ database for RED PATCHES. It was established that the identity of the horse presented to be inspected for the purpose of racing was in fact another three year old filly trained by Mr Barron named CHRISTY BREANNA. RED PATCHES was subsequently scratched prior to the commencement of the trials and did not race.
[7] When interviewed by RIU staff, Mr Barron advised both RED PATCHES and CHRISTY BREANNA had arrived at his stables some two years ago. He stated he had mixed up the horses upon their arrival and he had been preparing the two horses to race under one another’s names. Both horses were similar in physical appearance and have similar markings.
[8] Mr Barron admitted he had never checked the brands on the horses. When he had forwarded a trainer notification on 27 August 2012 advising HRNZ he was training RED PATCHES he had taken the brand off the horse’s registration papers instead of physically checking the brand from the horse.
[9] Mr Barron also confirmed CHRISTY BREANNA had started at workouts conducted by the Invercargill Harness Racing Club on 18 August 2012 instead of RED PATCHES, where it finished in second placing. This result has now been corrected by HRNZ to show CHRISTY BREANNA was the horse that finished second.
Submissions as to penalty:
[10] Mr Allison emphasised that the meeting at which RED PATCHES was presented to race was a trial not a raceday. RED PATCHES was able to be scratched prior to the trial and did not race.
[11] Mr Allison stated there was no suggestion that it was an intentional act by Mr Barron to deceive any party.
[12] Mr Allison said that when spoken to by RIU staff Mr Barron admitted his fault immediately, was very co-operative throughout the investigation, and conducted himself in a professional manner. Mr Barron took full responsibility for his actions. However, Mr Allison said the failure to check the brand on the horse was a basic error, which should not have occurred.
[13] The informant referred to relevant cases, namely NZTR v McK (2011) ($500 fine plus costs of $350), NZTR v W (2007) ($400 fine and no costs), and NZTR v H (2004) ($600 fine plus costs of $250). There were also two Harness Racing cases where fines of $250 were imposed: M (2004) and C (2006). These cases were both dealt with by HRNZ without an information being laid with the JCA.
[14] Mr Allison produced Mr Barron’s record, which he described as excellent. It recorded no previous breaches of this rule.
[15] The RIU submitted that a fine of $400 was appropriate and did not seek costs in relation to the hearing.
[16] Mr Barron confirmed the summary of facts as outlined by the informant and said he had made “a schoolboy error”. He did not disagree with the informant’s submission as to penalty.
Decision:
[17] We need to impose a penalty that holds the respondent accountable and which deters other licenceholders from identifying a horse solely from the papers without checking the brand on the horse itself.
[18] Mr Barron has started approximately 450 horses in a training partnership and around a further 1900 horses on his own account. He is thus an experienced trainer and is aware of his obligations under the Rules. We accept that he has made a genuine mistake and believe Mr Barron’s description of his actions as being “a school-boy error” to be apt.
[19] The respondent is fortunate that the breach was discovered at a trials meeting and not on raceday, otherwise a substantially higher penalty would have been considered. That said, the horse did attend a workout on one occasion before the error was discovered and this has necessitated that the official result be corrected.
[20] We accept Mr Barron is contrite and we are impressed with the professionalism he has shown during this hearing.
[21] The respondent’s record has been correctly described by the informant as “excellent” and that this is Mr Barron’s first breach of any significance of any rule in his 25 years in the industry is a significant mitigating factor.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[22] Weighing these matters, and taking guidance from the comparator cases identified by the informant, we impose a fine of $400.
[23] The matter was heard on a raceday and the informant does not seek costs. We make no order as to costs.
Prof G Hall Mr N Skelt
Chairman Committee Member
16 October 2012
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 411(2)
Informant: CJ Allison - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: TR Barron - 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: