Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v WT Hodgson – decision dated 4 March 2015

hearingid: 64a75545dd4ecbb34b1ba4d4b7caabe4

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/03/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v WT Hodgson - decision dated 4 March 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of

Greyhound Racing

AND

IN THE MATTER of Information A4162

BETWEEN SIMON ANDREW IRVING, Racing Investigator, Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND WILLIAM THOMAS HODGSON, Greyhound Trainer

Respondent

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 4TH MARCH 2015

INTRODUCTION

As a result of an incident at the Hatrick Raceway on the 29th December 2014, Mr William Thomas Hodgson, a Licensed Greyhound Trainer, was charged with a breach of Rule 88.1(g) of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

Rule 88.1 reads as follows:

“Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
(g) assaults, obstructs, impedes, abuses, threatens, or insults the Board, a Club, any member of a Club committee, any Steward, any member of a Judicial Committee and any member of the Appeals Tribunal or any other Official.”

It was alleged in Information A4162 that on 29th December 2014 at Wanganui, William Thomas Hodgson, a licensed greyhound trainer, abused Steward Michael Ross Austin by yelling at him and intimidating him by his conduct.

Mr Hodgson denied the breach of the rule.

PRESENT:

Mr Simon Irving (representing the Racing Integrity Unit) assisted by Mr Neil Grimstone (Manager Integrity Assurance)

Mr P Drummond, Counsel representing WT Hodgson (the respondent)

Mr WT Hodgson (Respondent)

Mr N Goodwin (Registrar)

THE FACTS

At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 29th December 2014, held at the Hatrick Raceway, Mr Austin was the Chairman of Stewards. He has been a Stipendiary Steward for eight years and acts at greyhound meetings only. He acts as a Stipendiary Steward at greyhound meetings 2-3 times per week equating to around 130 meetings per annum.

Following race 7, Mr Austin was in the Stewards’ room, reviewing the race. On that day Mr Austin had ordered two dogs trained by Mr Hodgson to be checked by the on-course veterinarian.

Mr Hodgson came into the Stewards’ room. According to Mr Austin, Mr Hodgson stood for a period of time close to the door, whilst he, (Mr Austin) finished reviewing the race. Mr Austin then alleged that Mr Hodgson pushed past him, and slammed the window to the Stewards’ room shut and then proceeded to “abuse” him by yelling at him, and intimidating him by his “body language”, primarily by waving his finger in Mr Austin’s face. Mr Austin said in his evidence-in-chief, he felt intimidated by Mr Hodgson’s proximity to him and his overall aggressive manner. He said that Mr Hodgson demanded to know why his dogs were ordered to be vet checked, and then used words to the effect the “You can’t read greyhound races, you don’t know what you are doing. We have been trying to get rid of you for a while now. Explain to me why you got the first dog vetted.”

Mr Austin went on to say that he asked Mr Hodgson to leave the room but that he refused. Mr Austin then said that he would have to call for the security staff to have him removed. Mr Hodgson said that would not worry him but did leave eventually, but continuing to make remarks about Mr Austin’s ability and getting rid of him.

In summary, Mr Austin felt most upset by the whole incident and was quick to tell the Club’s Manager, Ms Bridget Belsham about it. She arrived in the Stewards’ room a very short time after Mr Hodgson had left.

In cross examination, Mr Austin agreed that there is an “open door” policy, enabling trainers to discuss aspects of their dogs’ performance, or any other matter. Mr Austin agreed that some of the discussions can become heated but added that in his experience matters were generally able to be resolved. Mr Austin was also challenged about his allegation that Mr Hodgson had pushed past him and had slammed the window shut. Mr Austin agreed that there was no deliberate body contact. Mr Austin was further challenged about the so-called “yelling” and “intimidating body language”. He said that he thought that Mr Hodgson’s whole demeanour was threatening.

When asked as to why Mr Hodgson would shut the window, Mr Austin said he presumed that it would be so Mr Hodgson could not be heard by spectators in the stand outside the Stewards’ room. He said that Mr Hodgson did not begin speaking until he had shut the window. He agreed that the door to the Stewards’ room remained open, and thus, if anyone had come to the room whilst Mr Hodgson was there, that such person or persons would have easily overheard the argument.

Ms Bridget Belsham, who was the Manager of the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club at the time, said that as part of her daily duties, that she will call into the Stewards’ room several times during the meeting to ensure that all facets of the meeting are running smoothly. She said that around 2 pm, she walked up the stairs to see Mr Austin. She said that when she walked into the room, she could see that Mr Austin looked quite shocked and “that things did not seem quite normal with him”. She enquired as to what was wrong. She said that Mr Austin was shaken, and was pale and shocked. Mr Austin then related to her, his version of the events with regard to Mr Hodgson’s visit to the Stewards’ room a few minutes beforehand. She said that she had known Mr Hodgson on a professional basis for some time and said that she herself had been abused by Mr Hodgson. She also said that this was Mr Hodgson “to a tee”.

In cross examination, Ms Belsham agreed that she had no particular qualifications to enable her to assess the extent of the “state of shock” that Mr Austin was in. She was also challenged about her argument with Mr Hodgson at the last Annual General Meeting of the Club, when her voice was also raised.

Mr Irving then produced the formal statement that had been made by Mr Hodgson and played the audio of the interview to the hearing. He also produced as exhibits, photographs taken by him, of the Stewards' room and surrounding areas.

In cross examination, Mr Irving was asked if he had spoken to a Mr Jack Cooper who was in the commentary box. Mr Irving agreed that he had, but said that Mr Cooper thought that “something was going on”, but because of the sound proof nature of the commentary box, that he (Mr Cooper) did not know what it was or who was involved.

THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

Mr Hodgson said that on the 29th December 2014 he had 3 greyhounds running at the Hatrick Raceway. He said that two of his dogs were directed to be vet checked by Mr Austin. He did not know of any other dogs that were directed to be vet checked on that day. As a consequence of this, he decided that he would speak to Mr Austin about this.

He accepted that he was feeling upset and angry at the time.

However, Mr Hodgson said that he “vehemently denied” abusing Mr Austin. He denied that he yelled at Mr Austin. He accepted that his voice was raised, but so to was Mr Austin’s. He said that the door to the Stewards’ room was open and that nobody heard the exchange between them.

As to the allegation that he intimidated Mr Austin, he understood that this allegation related to him pushing past Mr Austin, shutting the window and waving his finger in Mr Austin’s face.

He said that he did not believe that he pushed past Mr Austin as there was no physical contact made. He could not recall shutting the window because he said there was no need for him to do so. He noted that it was claimed by Mr Austin that he did that to stop anyone from hearing the exchange - but the fact of the matter was that the door was open, and there would be no point in shutting the window without shutting the door.

Mr Hodgson accepted that he possibly waved his finger but that was just a mannerism in terms of how he expressed himself. He said that he did not intend for Mr Austin to feel that he was in any way being abused.

With the benefit of hindsight Mr Hodgson accepted that it was not prudent of him to go to the Stewards’ room and to tell Mr Austin that he did not think that he (Mr Austin) should be a Stipendiary Steward of greyhounds because of his abysmal knowledge of greyhounds, and as such, his language was improper. He said he was remorseful and apologetic for using such language in the heat of the moment.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIU

Mr Irving submitted that Mr Hodgson had abused Mr Austin by yelling at him. He said that in terms of the dictionary definition of “abuse” that the yelling/raised voice constituted “abuse”. Such conduct in the Stewards’ room, is not expected, and he submitted that that because Mr Austin had to threaten to call for Security, that reinforced the severity of the situation from Mr Austin’s perspective.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr Drummond, Counsel for the respondent, agreed that Mr Hodgson was quite out of order in speaking to Mr Austin in the manner that he did. Having said that, Mr Drummond submitted that Mr Hodgson’s conduct did not, amount to abuse. He asked us to find that any contact was accidental and that there was “no big deal” insofar as the finger waving was concerned.

Mr Drummond submitted that whilst the current charge had not been made out, that he readily conceded that Mr Hodgson had used improper, insulting or offensive language in terms of Rule 88.1(f) and therefore invited the Committee to exercise its power to amend the information.

Mr Irving, on behalf of the RIU did not agree to the information being amended.

DECISION AND REASONS

After giving consideration to the evidence, this Committee took the view that the RIU could not satisfy us that Mr Hodgson had committed a breach of Rule 88.1(g) in that the evidence was not sufficiently convincing for us to conclude that Mr Hodgson’s conduct had been abusive and intimidating. We had the benefit of seeing and hearing both the complainant and the respondent, and we were left with the impression that although Mr Austin may have felt concerned about the incident that there was always the chance that he overreacted to Mr Hodgson’s approach.

Having said that, there is no doubt in our minds that Mr Hodgson’s overall conduct was unacceptable, and unbecoming of a greyhound trainer of his experience.

Thus, on the invitation of Mr Hodgson’s counsel, this committee accordingly exercised its power pursuant to the Seventh Schedule 27.2 and amended the information to reflect a breach of Rule 88.1(f) which reads as follows:

“Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
uses improper, insulting or offensive language in either written or spoken form, towards, or in relation to;
(i) a Steward;

Mr Hodgson was requested to advise if he admitted or denied the charge as amended. Mr Hodgson advised that he admitted the charge as amended.

Accordingly the charge, as amended, was found to be proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Mr Irving advised the hearing that Mr Hodgson is a trainer of some 36 years’ experience, and has not been charged with a breach of the Rules of Greyhound Racing until now. He submitted that a fine of between $350 and $500 should be imposed.

In response, Mr Drummond said that Mr Hodgson was remorseful for his behaviour, and asked that he be given credit for his good record. He said that the prosecution for the breach of the rules has had its desired effect, and that Mr Hodgson did not “quibble” on the quantum of the fine to be imposed.

PENALTY DECISION

In this case we consider that a fine is an appropriate penalty. We have taken as a starting point a fine of $650 against which we must consider aggravating and mitigating features.

There are no particular aggravating features in this case which warrant an uplift on our starting point.

However, Mr Hodgson has a long unblemished record in the Greyhound Racing industry, and that coupled with his clear remorse for his behaviour, not only in this hearing but also in the interview with Mr Irving, enables us to afford him a discount on our starting point of $250.

PENALTY

Mr Hodgson is fined $400.

SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

The parties were invited to file written submissions as to costs.

However, Mr Irving said that the RIU did not seek an award of costs but asked for witness expenses for Ms Belsham in the sum of $300.

Mr Drummond submitted that costs should “lie where they fall.” He said that he had invited the RIU the day before the hearing to amend the charge but that agreement could not be reached on the summary of facts. From his client’s perspective he said that his client was not willing to agree to all of the allegations made against him. Because of that, he submitted that it would be unfair to award costs against his client.

He further submitted that witness expenses of $300 were excessive, but acknowledged that witness expenses were appropriate.

COSTS DECISION

Having carefully considered the submissions with regard to costs, we are persuaded that it is appropriate for costs to “lie where they fall”. However, it is appropriate that part of the JCA costs should be ordered against Mr Hodgson, which we set at $600. In addition Mr Hodgson is to pay witness expenses in the sum of $150.

KG Hales                   Chairman

T Utikere                   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: