Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 26 January 2026 – Ronald O’Regan

[1] Information A17993 is a representative charge and provides: “Between August 2023 to June 2024, Ron O’Regan, being the registered owner of: OUR BLACK PRINCE [microchip – 956000008917789] and BIG TIME RASCAL [microchip – 953010002896941] failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound by failing to provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed.”

[2] GRNZ Rule LR22B(2) provides with reference to deregistration of a greyhound from the GRNZ database: “The owner shall take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound and the owner shall provide to GRNZ the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed, in addition to complying with any applicable notification obligations under r 34(5).”

[3] Rule 34(5)(a) states with reference to the requirements in relation to the notification of control and location of a greyhound: “A registered person must notify GRNZ within three business days that a greyhound has come into, or left, the person’s care or custody.”

[4] The penalty provision is r 174(1) which states: “An Adjudicative Committee may as it thinks fit penalise a person found guilty of an offence under the Rules by any one or a combination of the following penalties:

(a) a reprimand (sometimes known as a warning or caution);
(b) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one offence …;
(c) suspension;
(d) disqualification;
(e) cancellation of a registration or a licence …; or
(f) warning off.”

[5] The Respondent has signed the Information admitting the breach and has requested that the penalty is heard on the papers rather than as an in person hearing.

[6] The Adjudicative Committee has been informed that Mr O’Regan has agreed to the summary of facts.

Summary of Facts

[7] The Respondent in this matter, Ronald Philip O’Regan is a licensed public trainer, training under a Public Training Partnership with his daughter – licensed trainer – Nyomi O’Regan under the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ) since 2013.

[8] They currently train approximately 25 racing greyhounds from their kennels located in Awaiti, Paeroa.

[9] As of 27th November 2025, GRNZ records indicate that R P O’Regan is the registered owner of four ‘Dogs Retired as Pets’ including –

• BIG TIME RASCAL (Ear brand – ZILCF, Microchip – 953010002896941)
• OUR BLACK PRINCE (Ear brand – ZILEH, Microchip – 056000008917789)

[10] Rule LR22B (2) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing (in force from 1 February 2023) states that “the owner of a greyhound: shall take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound and the owner shall provide to GRNZ the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed, in addition to complying with any applicable notification obligations under r 34(5)(a)”. This rule provides: “A registered person must notify GRNZ within three business days that a greyhound has come into, or left, the person’s care or custody.”

[11] The purpose of this recordkeeping requirement is so GRNZ and/or the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) can verify the placement and wellbeing of rehomed greyhounds and ensure that the greyhound has not been disposed of other than through being privately rehomed (for example, being euthanised).

[12] In October 2025, GRNZ formally requested the RIB to investigate anomalies in relation to two privately rehomed greyhounds.

[13] Licence holders are required to provide contact information to GRNZ for all privately rehomed animals. GRNZ noticed anomalies with two dogs that were not identified during an RIB Kennel Audit in September 2025. Subsequent enquiries with the O’Regans confirmed that the two dogs had been privately rehomed.

[14] These anomalies were as follows:

• Both greyhounds were deregistered from racing with GRNZ on the basis that they were to be kept by R P O’Regan as pets, following the completion of their racing careers.
• Subsequent enquiries undertaken by GRNZ established that both greyhounds had been allegedly privately rehomed to a person known only as ‘Evan’, without any notification to GRNZ and without the required documentation being completed or filed, including official desex and vaccination certificates, and dental and health check-up along with veterinary records.
• Only a mobile number was provided for ‘Evan’, with no physical address disclosed.
• GRNZ enquiries by text message to the number provided resulted in a response stating: “Sadly they both passed away. Suspected twisted bowel on both of them,” followed by: “They both passed last year. Was no vet involved died in the kennel.”

[15] The matter was referred to the RIB due to concerns regarding compliance with rehoming rules.

[16] OUR BLACK PRINCE was deregistered via the GRNZ online form on 24 May 2024 as “Retired as pet, kept by trainer.” The new owner’s details were listed as Ronald Philip O’Regan.

[17] BIG TIME RASCAL was similarly deregistered on 23 April 2023 with the Respondent listed as the new owner.

[18] Despite these declarations, the Respondent alleged that OUR BLACK PRINCE left their property in August–September 2023 and that BIG TIME RASCAL left in approximately June 2024.

[19] During interview, the Respondent stated that Evan was a “friend of a friend” who simply turned up at the property, expressed interest in the dogs, and was given them on the two separate occasions with minimal inquiry or formal process. No identity documents were obtained, and no address was recorded beyond “Clevedon”.

[20] The O’Regans further stated they were under the belief that it was the new owner who was required to desex the dogs, complete dental work, and notify GRNZ, believing this satisfied their obligations.

[21] GRNZ email records show that on 30 July 2024, the Respondent’s wife emailed photos of kennel cough vaccination certificates for both dogs, allegedly issued by Anexa Vets Paeroa on 18 March 2024. Enquiries with the clinic confirmed neither dog was presented that day.

[22] When presented with this discrepancy in the interview, the Respondent insisted the dogs had been rehomed to Evan prior to this date.

[23] The Respondent has been able to provide only a mobile number for Evan and no further details, including not knowing his physical address.

[24] The Respondent confirmed that he had never been informed of the dogs’ deaths and had no contact from Evan post the second dog leaving their property.

[25] Multiple attempts by the RIB to contact Evan via the number provided were unsuccessful. No evidence has been obtained to verify the claimed rehoming or the alleged deaths.

[26] Due to the Respondents’ failure to keep sufficient records to satisfy the requirements of both rr LR22B (2) and 34(5)(a), including:

• No identity details of the new owner were obtained.
• No prescribed forms or declarations were completed around the rehoming.
• No contact details or address were provided to GRNZ.
• No confirmation was obtained that the greyhounds were desexed, had dental work, or were registered with a council prior to rehoming.

[27] As a result of these failings, the RIB has been unable to:

a) verify that these dogs were indeed privately rehomed;
b) verify the welfare status of the dogs;
c) confirm the appropriateness of the rehoming arrangements; or
d) determine the accuracy of the reported deaths.

Decision

[28] As the Respondent has admitted the charge, it is found to be proved.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

[29] The Informant described the matter as “a documentation and recordkeeping failure”. The requirement to provide full contact details was critical to ensure the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, as it enabled GRNZ and the RIB to follow up on rehomed dogs and verify their wellbeing. The inability to do so in this case meant there was no way of establishing whether the two greyhounds were alive and well, or not. Because of Mr O’Regan’s failure, the RIB had been unable to verify that the dogs were indeed privately rehomed as opposed to being euthanised.

[30] A fine of $2,000, comprised of $1,000 per greyhound, was submitted to be the appropriate penalty with a reduction for the admission of the charge.

[31] The Informant referred to Lawson (2019) where the Appeals Tribunal said:

A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member…The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between:

• the public interest
• the interests of the offending member
• the interests of the professional body as a whole
• the seriousness of the offending
• any aggravating and mitigating factors.

[32] The penalty imposed had to ensure the protection of the integrity and reputation of the Industry by sanctioning Mr O’Regan’s conduct and deterring others from engaging in similar conduct.

[33] The RIB submitted that the Committee might want to consider the starting point of $1,000 per greyhound in the context of the impending closure of GRNZ and heightened emphasis on robust animal welfare and rehoming practices. Given the clearly deficient nature of the records kept and the serious nature of the consequences of the breach in the present instance, the Committee might then be minded that an uplift from the $1,000 starting point was warranted.

[34] The Informant identified comparable cases:

RIB v Cole (2024) — Mrs Lisa Cole admitted a representative charge pursuant to r 109.2 (the then equivalent rule to r 34(5)). Between 25 October 2022 and 6 November 2022, Mrs Cole failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing eight retired greyhounds, by failing to provide full identity and contact details of the new owners. Like the present case, Mrs Cole involved a failure to comply with documentation procedures under the Rules, and it was entirely uncertain as to what ultimately happened to the dogs in question.

The Adjudicative Committee acknowledged the significance of the record keeping requirements under the GRNZ Rules and noted that these rules are vital to ensure the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, maintaining Industry integrity and public confidence.  The Committee adopted a starting point of a fine of $1,000 per dog which resulted in a starting point of $8,000. The Committee reduced this starting point by 25% for mitigating factors. This resulted in a final fine of $6,000.

[35] The RIB submitted that a starting point of $1,000 for a documentation failure in respect of a single greyhound provided a helpful benchmark for the Committee.

RIU v Frederickson (2023) — Mr Frederickson breached r 163(d) by forging his wife’s signature on the transfer of ownership form for the sale of a greyhound after they encountered difficulties finding a convenient time to meet and both complete the paperwork. Mr Frederickson did so to speed up the sale process to enable the purchaser to race the greyhound at an upcoming race meeting. There was no evidence that Mr Frederickson’s wife objected to the sale of the greyhound and there was no question of the safety of the animal once it had been sold. The Committee adopted a starting point of a $1,000 fine for a documentation failure in respect of a single greyhound, which was reduced to $750 for mitigating factors.

[36] Like the present case, the Informant said that Frederickson involved a failure to comply with documentation procedures under the Rules. The dishonesty involved in Frederickson was not present in the current case, however, it was arguably more serious due to the inability to verify the wellbeing of the greyhounds.

RIU v McInerney (2018) — Mr McInerney pleaded guilty to two breaches of r 62.1. Greyhounds trained by Mr McInerney were being ferried across the Cook Strait. Due to the heat and inadequate ventilation, five of the six dogs died on the journey. Mr McInerney was not personally responsible for the treatment of the greyhounds during transportation, but he failed to provide adequate instructions to the driver of the truck transporting the dogs, resulting in a failure to ensure their wellbeing during transportation. The Judicial Committee adopted a starting point of $7,500, being $1,500 per greyhound. This was reduced to $5,000 for mitigating factors.

[37] The penalty in the McInerney case reflected the fact that the breaches of the Rules resulted in the deaths of the greyhounds. While that could not be said here, an analogy was available with the fact that GRNZ and RIB had been unable to verify the wellbeing of the greyhounds. In these circumstances, a starting point of $1,000 per dog, being two thirds of that adopted in McInerney, was appropriate.

[38] The Informant provided the Respondent’s previous judicial history.

[39] Mr O’Regan has received a couple of warnings for breaches of the Rules on two occasions and fines on eight occasions (mostly for weighing in breaches).

[40] Mr O’Regan has an historical charge in November 2005 for intent to deceive by fraudulently completing a document and was fined $150 plus costs of $50.

[41] Mr O’Regan under the Public Training Partnership with his daughter Nyomi O’Regan was fined $10,000 in 2022 for bringing, or allowing to be brought, onto greyhound premises, an animal capable of being used as a lure or to excite a greyhound. This breach, the RIB submitted, required an uplift on this charge.

[42] A reduction might be available for the fact that Mr O’Regan had admitted the charge, although this ought to take into account the fact that the records were clearly deficient.

Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

[43] Mr O’Regan’s penalty submission was brief. He acknowledged responsibility for the breach, stating that the kennel had failed to submit the required paperwork. He apologised for the oversight and assured the Adjudicative Committee that the kennel was taking steps to ensure that it did not happen again.

[44] Mr O’Regan requested that the Adjudicative Committee consider the financial impact of the fine. He referred to the kennel’s annual earnings. The $2,000 fine, he submitted, represented a significant proportion of the seasonal income. In comparison, he noted that fines issued to larger operations, such as in Cole, amounted to $6,000 for eight dogs, with a fine [sic, it was costs] payable of $4,300 — a proportionally lower financial impact relative to their scale.

[45] Mr O’Regan said he was not seeking to avoid responsibility, but rather to provide context regarding the relative financial burden on smaller kennels. Mr O’Regan concluded his submission by reiterating the size and earnings of the kennel’s operation should be taken into consideration when determining penalty or enforcement measures.

Decision as to Penalty

[46] Mr O’Regan has failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound by failing to provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed with respect to two greyhounds: OUR BLACK PRINCE [microchip – 956000008917789] and BIG TIME RASCAL [microchip – 953010002896941]. As a consequence, he has admitted a breach of r LR22B(2).

[47] This is a documentation failure. The purpose of rr LR22B(2) and 34(5)(a), however, is clear. The record keeping requirements are intended to maintain Industry integrity and public confidence by ensuring continuing animal welfare. In this context, there is a need to give weight when imposing penalty to deterrence and denunciation. The reputation of the Industry demands no less.

[48] In this case, the two dogs in question are said to be deceased. The person, Evan, to whom the dogs were given by the Respondent to be rehomed, has told the Racing Investigator by text, that they each died as a consequence of a twisted bowel. A veterinarian was not involved in either case to support the manner of their demise. The RIB has been unable to contact Evan, despite multiple attempts by text and phone. Only a telephone number has been given, as the Respondent does not know Evan’s physical address, other than it is in Clevedon. The RIB is therefore not able to confirm the circumstances of the dogs’ rehoming/deaths. This is a far from satisfactory situation and marks the gravity of the breach.

[49] The Informant submits a starting point of a fine of $2,000 is appropriate, with an uplift for the circumstances of the breach, viz the clearly deficient nature of the records kept and the serious nature of the consequences of the breach, which the Adjudicative Committee regards as referring to the fact the rehoming of the greyhounds cannot be established. It is not usual for a starting point to be uplifted in this fashion, but for these circumstances to be incorporated into the starting point itself before discounts are then applied for personal mitigating factors.

[50] The Adjudicative Committee believes the matters identified by the Informant and, in particular the very important role that this Rule plays in the promotion of animal welfare, are relevant considerations and adopts a starting point of $2,500 ($1,250 per dog).

[51] The present case is more serious than Frederickson, which involved a failure to comply with documentation procedures under the Rules. The dishonesty element in that case is not present, however. Mr O’Regan’s actions, or perhaps more correctly his omissions, were more serious due to the inability, as in Cole, to verify the wellbeing of the greyhounds. The starting point in Frederickson was a $1,000 fine.

[52] The $1,500 starting point per dog in McInerney to which the Informant referred, gives only limited guidance. Although factually different, death was the outcome in each case.

[53] That said, there is no evidence that any actions or omissions by the Respondent in this case, led to the animals’ demise. As noted, the circumstances of their rehoming/deaths cannot be established, but this is simply a consequence of the breach of rr LR22B(2) and 34(5). Penalty, however, is imposed with this fact in mind.

[54] The facts in the case of Cole are similar to the present case. There were discrepancies in the records of eight dogs, as opposed to the O’Regan’s two. Full addresses had not been provided for the rehomed dogs, only phone numbers which provided the same recorded messages when rung. As in this case, the RIB was not able to establish that the dogs had been rehomed.

[55] The starting point of $1,000 per dog in Cole could be said to be low and is perhaps best viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances in that case, in that eight dogs were involved and thus the combined (global) starting point was $8,000.

[56] Mr O’Regan does not appear before the Adjudicative Committee with a clear record. The race related breaches are put to one side, but consideration must be given to the previous breach involving an intent to deceive by fraudulently completing a document. However, the penalty imposed was a fine of $150, which suggests culpability was at the lower end.

[57] The Informant submits that there should be a small uplift for the previous breach of bringing on to greyhound premises, an animal capable of being used as a lure or to excite a greyhound. This breach is clearly more serious than the current breach and this is reflected in the $10,000 fine that was imposed. However, when regard is had to that decision, it is evident that the circumstances of the breach (a rabbit that was roadkill was kept in a freezer) were such that it was low end, and this was the minimum penalty the Committee could impose under the Rules.

[58] Although the Informant has submitted a small uplift is appropriate for record, the previous breaches do not establish a pattern of behaviour that is related to the breach before the Adjudicative Committee and there is no uplift, but equally there is no discount for record. It is regarded as neutral.

[59] Mr O’Regan requests that the Adjudicative Committee considers the size of the kennel. The Informant states there are approximately 25 dogs in the O’Regan kennel. Mr O’Regan describes it as a small operation, with a fine having a more severe impact than would the fines imposed on the McInerney and Cole kennels. The fines in those cases, however, were substantially more than the fine the Adjudicative Committee imposes in this case, because the breaches involved more dogs.

[60] The mitigating factor of the early admission of the breach, is to be viewed with reference to the particular circumstances of the breach, in that it was clearly established, with the bookkeeping falling well short of good Industry practice. Regard is also had to Mr O’Regan’s apology for his actions, his lengthy time in, and his contribution to, the Industry, and the size of the O’Regan kennel and the associated financial impact.

[61] This leads to a 25 per cent reduction from the $2,500 starting point.

[62] The fine on the representative charge under r LR22B(2) is one of $1,875.

Costs

[63] The Informant has not sought costs and, as the matter was dealt with on the papers, there is no award.