Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 20 October 2025 – Jack Harrington

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 6 at the North Canterbury TOA trials meeting, Licensed Trainer, Jack Harrington, admitted a breach of Rule  501(b) “in that, he drove ZIA BROMAC  in a trial when not currently licensed.”

Rule 501(b) provides as follows:

Except as otherwise expressly provided in these Rules, no person:-
(b) other than a person holding a Driver’s Licence shall drive any horse in any race, exhibition or trial against time at any race meeting.

The Respondent, Mr Harrington, had endorsed the Information ‘I do admit the breach of the Rule’.

Mr Harrington was very unwell and after discussion, was excused from attending the hearing.

EVIDENCE:

An authority to charge signed by RIB Chief Executive Eliot Forbes was provided to the Adjudicative Committee.

Stipendiary Steward, Matthew Sole stated that at the North Canterbury Trials Meeting at Rangiora on 9 October 2025, Mr Harrington drove ZIA BROMAC in Race 6 on the trials card, when not licensed to do so. Mr Harrington held a Trainers Licence, not a Drivers Licence at the time. He explained that the breach was noticed, subsequent to the meeting by HRNZ, when they were loading the results data for the trial race and Mr Harrington showed up as only holding a Trainers Licence not a Drivers Licence, as required. A Drivers Licence or Trials Licence is required, Mr Sole stated, at official trials meetings under the Rules.

Mr Sole added that as a result of this information from HRNZ, ZIA BROMAC was subsequently disqualified from the event.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As Mr Harrington has admitted the breach, the charge is found proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Sole said that there were historic penalties imposed for the same breach in the past, the most recent being at Ashburton Trials on 8 September 2020, where Trainer R B Ward was fined $300 for driving in a trial without a Licence to do so. At Rangiora, Trainer M House was also fined the sum of $300 when in breach of the Rule, at a trials meeting on 18 September 2024. Mr Sole added that the fines imposed prior to these breaches, were also consistently a $300 fine.

He submitted a fine of $300 be considered as penalty in this case.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for a breach of this Rule. The historic penalties imposed in previous years, as supplied by Mr Sole, showed a consistent penalty of  a $300 fine. Therefore, after consideration of all factors and for the sake of consistency, a fine of $300 was deemed an appropriate penalty in this case.

CONCLUSION:

The Respondent, Mr Harrington, is fined the sum of $300.